The Karnataka High Court dismissed an FIR against BJP leader BY Vijayendra, accused of extortion related to electoral bonds. The decision, informed by a prior ruling favoring co-accused Naleen Kumar Kateel, emphasized the complaints’ similarities. The court declined to revisit the matter, affirming judicial discretion and procedural consistency as key legal principles.
Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, December 17, quashed the proceedings related to an FIR filed against BY Vijayendra, the current BJP State President and former Vice President. The case, which accused Vijayendra of extortion under the guise of electoral bonds, was dismissed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, following a similar judgment passed on December 3 in favor of Naleen Kumar Kateel, the former BJP State President and co-accused in the case.
The High Court’s ruling was based on the similarity of complaints against both accused, with the court stating:
“I reiterate that there is no difference of facts in the complaint between the present petitioner and co-accused A-4 in whose favour the criminal petition has been decided.”
Referring to the previous judgment, the court noted:
“Since, it is the issue qua the co-accused, complaint being verbatim similar qua all the accused and the finding rendered would enure to the benefit of all the accused, this court would not sit in appeal over its own order.”
This clarification ensured that the benefit of the December 3 judgment in Kateel’s case applied equally to Vijayendra.
Advocate Nisha Tiwari, representing the complainant Adarsh Iyer, contended that the objections raised in Vijayendra’s case were distinct. She argued that the earlier order in Kateel’s case was “per incuriam” (passed without considering binding precedent). However, the court rejected this argument, stating:
“The grounds which the counsel is now wanting to project are entirely different. The counsel being changed for qua the other accused raising different grounds that were not raised by the complainant’s counsel qua the A-4 cannot now be entertained.”
The court emphasized that revisiting the matter would amount to sitting in appeal over its own earlier order.
The complainant cited the Supreme Court judgment in the case of M.R. Ajayan Versus State of Kerala and Others (Criminal Appeal No. of 2024, decided on November 20, 2024) to strengthen her case. However, the Karnataka High Court held that the cited judgment was not applicable to this case.
While acknowledging its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the High Court clarified that such powers are discretionary and must be exercised judiciously. Justice Nagaprasanna noted:
“Power to recall its own order is inherent like the inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceeding under Section 482 CrPC. The power may be available, the exercise of it is a discretion. Therefore, I exercise my discretion not to take a different decision on what decision has been taken earlier by the court.”
Key Highlights of the Ruling
- Similarity in Complaints: The court found no substantive difference between the complaints against Vijayendra and Kateel, rendering a rehearing unnecessary.
- Obliteration of the Crime: The High Court stated that the complaint lacked merit and quashed the proceedings against Vijayendra.
- Right to Appeal: The court reminded the complainant of her legal right to appeal the decision rather than rearguing the same matter.
This ruling not only brings relief to Vijayendra but also sets a legal precedent for the handling of similar cases involving multiple accused with identical complaints. The High Court’s emphasis on judicial discretion and procedural consistency highlights the importance of following established legal frameworks.
Case Title: B Y Vijayendra AND State of Karnataka & ANR
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES