Karnataka High Court ne Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, former MP Naleen Kumar Kateel, aur Enforcement Directorate (ED) ke officials ke khilaaf registered FIR per jaanch ko temporarily stay kar diya hai. Yeh FIR extortion ke allegations per based hai jo electoral bonds se judi hai.
Nirmala Sitharaman electoral bonds case
Justice M Nagaprasanna ne yeh interim order pass kiya jab Kateel ki taraf se file petition per sunwayi huvi, jo Tilak Nagar police dwara registered FIR ki legality ko challenge kar rahi thi. Yeh FIR magistrate ke ek order ke baad private complaint ke basis par file hui thi jo Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath (JSP) ke co-president Adarsh R Iyer ne ki thi.
Court ne observe kiya ki magistrate ne jab case ko investigation ke liye refer kiya, toh kahi per bhi yeh mention nahi kiya ki victim ko accused ke dwara dara kar property dene ke liye majboor kiya gaya ho. Justice Nagaprasanna ne kaha ki Section 383 IPC ke under jo extortion ke elements hote hain, woh iss complaint mein nahi hain. Agar complaint mein zaruri elements nahi hote, toh investigation ko aage badhane se legal process ka galat istemal hota. Iss wajah se, judge ne agle sunwayi tak investigation ko rok diya, jo October 22 ko hogi.
Is case mein Section 384 IPC ka zikr hai jo extortion ke liye saza deta hai. Lekin extortion establish karne ke liye Section 383 ke elements hone chahiye, jisme complainant ko dar ke kaaran property deni padti hai. Court ne clarify kiya ki criminal proceedings kisi bhi vyakti ke dwara shuru ki ja sakti hai, lekin kuch specific cases jaise extortion mein, kewal aggrieved person hi legal action le sakta hai. JSP ke co-president complainant ne claim nahi kiya ki unhe dara dhamka kar property dene par majboor kiya gaya, isliye extortion charge doubtful hai.
Court ne further kaha ki complainant JSP ke co-president hain, lekin unhone kabhi yeh nahi kaha ki unse koi property dene ke liye dara dhamkaya gaya tha. Is case mein, complainant ne Section 384 ko invoke kiya, lekin wo khud aggrieved informant nahi hain, jo ki Section 383 ke tahat zaroori hai.
Senior counsel K G Raghavan, jo Kateel ko represent kar rahe the, ne argue kiya ki complaint mein extortion ke koi bhi praman nahi hain jo charge ko support kar sakein. Complaint aur magistrate ke order dono vague hain aur legal elements ko pura nahi karte.
Wahin, complainant ki taraf se senior advocate Prashant Bhushan ne argue kiya ki ED ne kuch companies ko dara dhamka kar electoral bonds lene par majboor kiya. Unhone kaha ki Supreme Court ne iss matter ko open rakha tha legal recourse ke liye, isliye investigation ko aage badhna chahiye.
Ab Karnataka High Court is case ki agle sunwayi October 22 ko karegi, tab tak investigation per stay laga rahega.
