"Vague Complaint, Complete Assumptions": Supreme Court Affirms HC Order Quashing FIR Against BJP Leader Over Alleged Electoral Bonds Extortion

The Supreme Court today (February 3), while dismissing the plea challenging the discharge of ex-BJP Karnataka State President Naleen Kumar Kateel in a case alleging extortion through electoral bonds, remarked that the complaint was 'vague' and based on 'assumptions'

The Court however clarified that the dismissal of the present plea would not bar anyone from showing material evidence which could justify the filing of the FIR/complaint. 

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the plea moved by the original complainant and co-president of Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath, Adarsh R. Iyer . 

The Karnataka High Court quashed proceedings pertaining to an FIR registered against former BJP State president Kateel for allegedly extorting money under the guise of electoral bonds. 

The high court in its order said that the complainant in the case was alien to the alleged transaction and an alien cannot complain of extortion. It further said in its order that the complaint suffers from want of locus to register the complaint. The court further observed in its order that "not even a modicum" of ingredients of the alleged offence have made out even in its "prima facie sense", and what the complainant had projected is a "huge hocus-pocus", but he in fact has "no locus".

At the outset, the CJI said that the FIR for lodged based on mere assumptions and was vague. 

"How can a vague complaint be at all made, these are assumptions, complete assumptions- I have gone through the complaint these are all assumptions." 

Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for Iyer stressed that in the complaint the details of the raids were given. He argued that instead of going into the evidence of the crime, the High Court quashed the FIR on the grounds that the complainant is not the actual victim of the alleged extortion. 

CJI interject to point out that the High Court order states that there is no material to find extortion and secondly, that the petitioner is only a third person and cannot be qualified as a victim under the ingredients of S. 383 IPC (Offence of Extortion) 

The CJI further asked if the concerned company made any complaint regarding this : "Please show me what is the material. Has the person who was affected made a complaint to that effect?" 

Bhushan explained that the companies which faced ED raids were the same and donated in electoral bonds. He said that as per extortion, the company concerned was put in fear. 

Justice Kumar also weighed to ask, "Do you have someone from Vedanta supporting you that this was done? otherwise, you will initiate a roving inquiry. You say look at these two facts, put them together - draw an inference." 

Bhushan replied, "Vedanta is both the victim and the beneficiary" 

CJI explained that the decision to strike down the electoral bonds was based on the analysis of legal principles on the subject. Whether individual companies were forced to donate in electoral bonds is a case-specific matter which has its own facts and circumstances. 

"That's not how the system works, otherwise, anybody sitting in the room will say any allegation made -please investigate. Somebody making an allegation, we will start a roving inquiry?" 

While dismissing the plea, the bench clarified : 

" We however clarify that the impugned judgement will not come in the way of nay person who has material and evidence to show that there is evidence which will justify registration of FIR." 

Before The High Court 

Iyer had alleged that action by government agencies like ED was used to threaten companies and make them buy electoral bonds. Taking cognizance of the same the Magistrate court had directed registration of FIR. Earlier by way of interim order the court had stayed further investigation in the case.

In its order, the high court while referring to IPC section 383 which pertains to extortion said, "For offence of extortion, element of consent by putting the victim in fear of injury is imperative."

Following this it said, "The petitioner or other accused should have put the complainant in fear for delivery of property. It is not the case of the complainant, even in the complaint, that he has been put to fear of injury and he has delivered any property to the accused. Therefore, meeting of ingredients, in the case at hand of Section 383 of the IPC, as elucidated by the Apex Court, is a figment of imagination, of the complainant."

It added that if a "victim had complained" that he had purchased electoral bonds it would have been an "altogether different circumstance". The court said that the offence of extortion was not made out in the present case with respect to the petitioner.

Stating that Section 39 of the Criminal Procedure Code, clearly demarcates what are the offences that can be complained of by the public and person aggrieved, it said, "Any person can set the criminal law in motion only insofar as offences enumerated in Section 39 and notwithstanding the enumeration under Section 39, if the officer-in-charge of the Police Station would not register the crime, it would not lead to incongruity".

The high court observed that Section 33 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is the corresponding provision of Section 39 of the Cr.P.C. It said that there is again no change, addition or deletion of offences enumerated in Section 39 of the Cr.P.C., in Section 33 of the BNSS.

The court thus held "I have no hesitation to hold that the complaint suffers from want of locus to register the complaint even for an offence punishable under Section 384 of the IPC for extortion. The learned Magistrate who has referred the matter for investigation in terms of his order supra does not advert to this issue. Merely because the complainant has registered a complaint which projects alleged extortion, the learned Magistrate cannot become a rubber stampPresiding Officer to the complaint, to refer the matter for investigation, without application of mind to the relevant statutory provisions".

It added "He (Complainant) is an alien to the transaction and an alien cannot complain of extortion."

Case Details : ADARSH R. IYER Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA SLP(Crl) No. 1183/2025