The Supreme Court confirms the order of that

The Supreme Court today (February 3), rejecting the request that appeals the release of ex-BDP President Karnatak Nalin Kumra Katel in a case that claims extortion through election bonds, noted that the complaint was “vague” and founded on “assumptions”

However, the court said that the deviation of the current request would not prohibit anyone testify to significant evidence that could justify the FIR/complaint.

Bench CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar He heard as a request, raised by the original complainant and co -chair of Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath, Adarsh ​​R. Iyer.

Karnatak Supreme Court the proceedings have been canceled With regard to VAT, registered against the former President of the State of BDP Katel for allegedly demanding money under the guise of election bonds.

The senior court stated that the complainant in the case was a foreign transaction, and the alien could not complain of extortion. He then stated that the complaint was suffering from the desire of Locus to register the complaint. At his disposal, the court noted that “not even the fashion of the ingredients of the predictable offense, even in his” Prima Facie Sense “fact” does not have “no locus”.

At the beginning, CJI stated that the DA was filed on the basis of simple assumptions and was vague.

“As a vague complaint can be made in general, it is an assumption, full of assumptions, I have experienced a complaint, this is all assumptions.”

Bhushan’s lawyer Appearing for Yiera stressed that the complaint was wrapped in raids. He argued that instead of engaging in the evidence of a crime, the High Court reversed VAT on the grounds that the complainant is not the actual victim of the intended extortion.

CJI intervenes to indicate that the High Court’s Decision notes that there are no materials that can be found by extortion, secondly that the applicant is only a third party and cannot be qualified as a victim for ingredients S. 383 IPC (offense)

Then CJI asked if the interested company filed any complaint about this: “Show me that the material is. Did the victim filed a complaint about it? ”

Bhushan explained that the companies that encountered ED raids were the same and donated to election bonds. He said that according to the extortion, the interested company was laid on fear.

The justice of the kumar also weighed to ask, “Do you have any of the Vedanta who supports you what was done? Otherwise, you initiate the investigation. You say, look at these two facts, make them together – draw a conclusion. ”

Bhushan replied: “Vedant is both the victim and the beneficiary”

Cji explained that Decision to punch election bonds It was based on the analysis of legal principles in this regard. Whether individual companies are forced to sacrifice election bonds are a specific case that has its own facts and circumstances.

“It is not the way the system works, otherwise someone sitting in the room will say any statement -whatever it is investigating. Someone will be charged, we will start the investigation?”

Rejecting the request, the bench specified:

“However, we clarify that the contested decision will not interfere with a person who has material and evidence that indicates that there is evidence that justifies FIR registration.”

To the highest court

Yer argued that the actions of government agencies, such as ED, were used to threaten companies and force them to buy election bonds. Taking the same, the Magistrate Court ruled the FIR registration. Earlier, with the help of a temporary order, the court remained a further investigation into the case.

The High Court, referring to Section 383 IPC concerning extortion, said: “For offenses, an element of consent, giving a victim of fears of injuries is obligatory.”

Following it is said, “The plaintiff or other accused had to put the complainant for fear of delivery of property. It did not apply to the complainant, even in the complaint, he was afraid of injuries, and he delivered any property to the accused. Therefore, the meeting of the ingredients, in the case of 383 IPC, as clarified by the Court of Appeal, is a figure of the complainant’s imagination. “

He added that if the victim complained that he had purchased election bonds, it would be “a completely different circumstance.” The court stated that the crime of extortion was not made in the case against the applicant.

Note that Section 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly distinguishes which offenses may complain to the public and the injured person said: “Any person can only impose a criminal law on the request that the offenses listed in Section 39, and despite the transfer in accordance with section 39, if the responsible officer of the police department has not registered a crime, it will not lead to inconsistency.”

The Supreme Court noted that Section 33 of Bharatius Suransha Sanhita, 2023, in section 33 BNSS.

So the court spent “I do not hesitate to believe that the complaint suffers from the fact that the locus has registered the complaint even for an offense punishable in accordance with section 384 of the IPC for extortion. An experienced magistrate who has addressed this question about the investigation in terms of his order Supra does not advertise this issue. Only because the complainant has registered a complaint that the projects were claimed, the magistrate scientist cannot become an officer of a rubber brand to refer to this issue for investigation without applying the relevant legislative provisions. “

He added that “he (the complainant) is a transaction alien, and the alien cannot complain of extortion.”

Details of the case: Adarsh ​​R. Iyer VS State of Karnataka SLP (CRL) No. 1183/2025