Supreme Court dismisses appeal against Karnataka High Court quashing of FIR against Nalin Kateel

Supreme Court dismisses plea challenging Karnataka HC decision on FIR against BJP leader, citing lack of evidence.

The Supreme Court of India on Monday (February 3, 2025) refused to entertain a special leave petition challenging a Karnataka High Court decision to quash a First Information Report (FIR) initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by Adarsh R. Iyer, co-president of the Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath, against Nalin Kumar Kateel, former president of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) State unit.

The FIR had named Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and others. The accusations in FIR based on Mr. Iyer’s complaint involved extortion. A Bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar said it went through the complaint and found “it full of assumptions.”

The Bench said the complaint did not show any material or evidence to back claims made in it. “The High Court says there is no evidence and that you [Iyer] are a third person,” Chief Justice Khanna addressed advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner.

The FIR was registered on Mr. Iyer’s complaint alleging “extortion” of around ₹8,000 crore pushing key persons in certain companies to purchase electoral bonds in favour of the BJP after allegedly conducting raids and searches on their companies and arrests by misusing officials of the Enforcement Directorate (ED). “There is no evidence to show extortion,” Chief Justice Khanna said.

Mr. Bhushan said the complaint presented a “clear case that persons were put in fear of ED raids… Somebody has to go into that question.” Justice Kumar said the court cannot delve into these allegations based on mere speculations.

Chief Justice Khanna said the electoral bonds scheme was struck down after the Supreme Court went into the jurisprudential questions concerning it. In individual matters, the courts would decide as per their particular facts and circumstances.

The Bench, however, in its order, clarified that its decision to dismiss the special leave petition would not “come in the way of any person who has material and evidence to justify the registration of an FIR.”