The court ruled that a complainant must be an aggrieved person to allege extortion under IPC Section 384, and mere public interest does not suffice for locus standi.

ORDER :

The petitioner, a former Member of Parliament and State President of the Bharatiya Janata Party (‘BJP’ for short) is knocking at the doors of this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.224 of 2024 arising out of PCR No.4880 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 384, 120B and 34 of the IPC.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts germane are as follows:-

It is the case of the complainant that the petitioner and other accused are either holding constitutional posts or office bearers of National Party i.e., BJP at this juncture. The accused in the impugned crime are Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman, Finance Minister, accused No.1; officials of Enforcement Directorate, accused No.2; office bearers of national level BJP, accused No.3; the petitioner, the then President of the Karnataka State BJP, accused No.4; Sri Vijayendra B Y, then Vice President and current President of Karnataka State BJP, accused No.5; and other office bearers of the State BJP. The complainant describes himself to be the Co-President of Janaadhikaaara Sangharsha Parishath. It is the averment that the Government of India on 02-01-2018 had notified Electoral Bond Scheme 2018 (‘the Scheme’ for short) in exercise of its power under Section 31(3) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (‘RBI Act’ for short) and had brought in certain statutory amendments. The complainant narrates that modus operandi of the accused is that accused No.1, the Finance Minister would take the assistance of accused No.2, officers of Enforcement Directorate to conduct raids, searches, arrest of various corporate bodies, their Chief Executive Officers and Managing Directors inter alia. Fearing raids of accused No.2 unleashed at the direction of accused No.1, the persons against whom searches, seizures and arrests were to be made, were put in fear and coercion to buy electoral bonds worth several crores, which are encashed by accused Nos. 3 and 4.

3. What is aforesaid is described in the complaint to be extortion racket under the garb of electoral bonds. Three illustrations of M/s Sterlite, M/s Vedanta Company and M/s Aurobindo Pharma are quoted in the complaint. The issue of electoral bonds became subject matter of proceedings before the Apex Court as constitutional validity of the Scheme was questioned in Writ Petition 880 of 2017 and connected cases. The amendments brought into the RBI Act were held to be unconstitutional and several directions were issued by the Apex Court in its judgment rendered on 15-02-2024. The complaint broadly bases its foundation upon observations of the Apex Court. The complaint is registered on 15-04-2024.

4. The private complaint invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., comes to be registered on 15-04-2024. Close to five months thereafter, the concerned Court refers the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., which has resulted in registration of the impugned crime in Crime No.224 of 2024 for the afore-quoted offences. Registration of crime is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. This Court, in terms of its order dated 30-09-2024 had granted an interim order of stay of further investigation. The same is in operation even today.

5. Heard Sri K.G.Raghavan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Prashanth Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

SUBMISSIONS:

Petitioner:

6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner Sri K.G. Raghavan would submit that no case is made out in the complaint for the offences alleged. The ingredients of none of the offences are even met in the remotest sense in the case at hand. He would take this Court through Section 383 of the IPC, which is necessary for an offence under Section 384 of the IPC, Sections 120B and 34 of the IPC to contend that the facts or the averments in the complaint do not have a semblance of