Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a former Member of Parliament and State President of BJP, filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash FIR No. 224/2024 registered at Tilaknagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences under Sections 384, 120B, 34 IPC. The FIR arose from a private complaint filed by the second respondent, a Co-President of Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath, alleging an extortion racket involving electoral bonds. The complaint claimed that the Finance Minister, Enforcement Directorate officials, and BJP office bearers coerced corporate entities into purchasing electoral bonds under threat of investigation. The constitutional validity of the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 was challenged before the Supreme Court, which declared it unconstitutional on 15-02-2024. On 15-04-2024, the private complaint was filed, and on 27-09-2024, the Magistrate directed investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, leading to the FIR. The petitioner argued that the complaint lacked the necessary ingredients of extortion as no specific act of fear or delivery of property was attributed to a victim, and the complainant, not being a direct victim, had no locus standi. The complainant contended that extortion is a public wrong, the actual victims would not come forward, and the Supreme Court had permitted recourse to common law remedies. The court heard arguments and reserved orders on 20-11-2024. The extracted text does not contain the final decision or ratio decidendi of the court.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the complaint discloses ingredients of offences under Sections 384, 120B, 34 IPC; Whether the complainant has locus standi to file a private complaint for extortion; Whether the registration of FIR and reference under Section 156(3) CrPC was justified
Law Points
- locus standi to file extortion complaint
- ingredients of offence under Section 384 IPC
- necessity of direct victim for extortion
- public interest litigation in criminal law
- scope of Section 156(3) CrPC
Case Details
2024 LawText (KAR) (12) 59
Criminal Petition No.10321 of 2024
K. G. Raghavan, Suyog Herele E., B.N. Jagadeesha, Prashanth Bhushan, Shivamurthy A.R.
The State of Karnataka, Sri Adarsh R. Iyer
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of entire proceedings in Crime No.224/2024 including the order of reference under Section 156(3) CrPC
Filing Reason
Allegation of extortion racket in electoral bond scheme; petitioner claimed no offence made out and complainant lacked locus standi
Previous Decisions
Supreme Court declared Electoral Bond Scheme unconstitutional on 15-02-2024; Magistrate directed investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC on 27-09-2024; interim stay of investigation granted on 30-09-2024
Issues
Whether the complaint discloses ingredients of offences under Sections 384, 120B, 34 IPC
Whether the complainant, a co-president of a public organization, has locus standi to file a complaint for extortion
Whether the registration of FIR and reference under Section 156(3) CrPC was justified
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: Ingredients of extortion not met; no fear or delivery of property to any person; complainant is not an aggrieved party and has no locus to file extortion complaint; Section 39 CrPC exception not applicable; extortion requires direct victim.
Respondent: Victims of extortion would not come forward; Supreme Court permitted recourse to common law remedy; extortion is a public wrong and any member of public can complain; once cognizable offence is alleged, investigation must follow as per Lalita Kumari.
Judgment Excerpts
The complainant describes himself to be the Co-President of Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath.
What is aforesaid is described in the complaint to be extortion racket under the garb of electoral bonds.
The issue of electoral bonds became subject matter of proceedings before the Apex Court as constitutional validity of the Scheme was questioned.
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.
The complainant broadly bases its foundation upon observations of the Apex Court.
This Court, in terms of its order dated 30-09-2024 had granted an interim order of stay of further investigation.
He would contend that offence of extortion cannot be made by general public, but only by an aggrieved person.
He would submit that the victim in the case at hand, is not a complainant, but every member of general public is a victim.
The learned senior counsel would seek to place reliance upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of LALITA KUMARI v. GOVERNMENT OF U.P.
He would also seek to place reliance upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.R. ANTULAY v. R.S. NAYAK.
all to buttress the submission that locus is alien to criminal jurisprudence which is inclusive of offence under Section 384 of the IPC.
Procedural History
Private complaint filed under Section 200 CrPC on 15-04-2024. On 27-09-2024, the Magistrate referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, leading to registration of FIR No.224/2024 for offences under Sections 384, 120B, 34 IPC. Petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.10321/2024 under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing. On 30-09-2024, the High Court granted an interim stay of further investigation. The matter was heard on 20-11-2024 and reserved for orders.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code: 384, 120B, 34, 383
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482, 200, 156(3), 39
- Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934: 31(3)
