Today, On 3rd February, A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar dismissed the appeal against the Karnataka High Court’s decision to quash the FIR filed against Nalin Kateel. After reviewing the complaint, the Bench found it to be “full of assumptions.” The Court emphasized that there was no sufficient basis to continue with the FIR. The ruling marks a significant development in the legal proceedings involving Kateel.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India declined to entertain a special leave petition that challenged a Karnataka High Court decision to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed by Adarsh R. Iyer, co-president of the Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath, against Nalin Kumar Kateel, the former president of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) State unit.
The FIR also named Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and others, with the allegations stemming from Iyer’s complaint regarding extortion.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar reviewed the complaint and described it as “full of assumptions.”
The Bench noted that the complaint lacked material or evidence to substantiate the claims made.
Chief Justice Khanna remarked to advocate Prashant Bhushan, who represented the petitioner,
“The High Court says there is no evidence and that you [Iyer] are a third person,”
The FIR was based on Mr. Iyer’s allegations of an “extortion” amounting to approximately Rs.8,000 crore, claiming that key individuals in certain companies were pressured into purchasing electoral bonds in favor of the BJP through alleged raids, searches, and arrests facilitated by the misuse of Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials.
Chief Justice Khanna stated,
“There is no evidence to demonstrate extortion,”
Mr. Bhushan argued that the complaint reflected a “clear case where individuals were instilled with fear of ED raids… Someone needs to investigate that matter.”
However, Justice Kumar emphasized that the court could not address these allegations based solely on speculative claims.
Chief Justice Khanna pointed out that the electoral bonds scheme had been invalidated after the Supreme Court examined the jurisprudential issues surrounding it. He added that in individual cases, courts would make decisions based on their specific facts and circumstances.
The Bench clarified in its order that the dismissal of the special leave petition would not hinder any individual who possesses material and evidence to warrant the registration of an FIR.