The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday reserved its decision on a plea to quash a criminal case accusing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders, including Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, of extortion and other offences in connection with the Electoral Bonds scheme.

Justice M Nagaprasanna had earlier stayed the investigation in the case after BJP leader Nalin Kumar Kateel challenged the registration of a first information report (FIR) against Sitharaman and others.

"Orders reserved. Interim relief to continue until final orders," the Court said today.

The police had earlier registered an FIR against Sitharaman, BJP chief JP Nadda, Kateel, unknown officials of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and others after the the XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bengaluru took cognisance of a private complaint filed against them.

Activist Adarsh R Iyer of a non-governmental organisation (NGO) Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath alleged in the complaint that BJP leaders, in connivance with some ED officials, extorted private firms and made illegal gains under the Electoral Bonds scheme that was struck down by the Supreme Court in February this year.

Iyer claimed that the accused committed “extortion under the guise and garb of electoral bonds and benefited to the tune of 8000 and more crores of INR.”

The complaint mentioned instances of raids by ED on companies such as Vedanta, Sterlite and Aurobindo Pharma. He said that such raids were undertaken to get the proprietors of these companies to donate money to the BJP through the Electoral Bonds scheme.

In the petition challenging the registration of a case in this matter, Kateel claimed that he and the others have been "falsely implicated" in the case "with an ulterior political motive."

The Court today heard arguments of Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who represented the complainant. Bhushan argued that there is no bar in law to prevent a citizen from setting the criminal law in motion when it comes to grave offences.

"When the ruling party is able to secure large amounts through electoral bonds, it distorts the level playing field in electoral politics," he argued.

However, the Court asked whether the allegations meet the requirements for registering the offence of extortion.

Bhushan answered in affirmative, saying that people were put under the threat of jail and were warned that proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) would be initiated against them.

"The ED is under the Central government," he added, while referring to the anti-money laundering agency.

However, Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, appearing for Kateel, contended that the requirements to register the offence of extortion were not met.

"The victim in the case is not before the Court. The complainant is not the victim," he added.

It was also submitted that the question was whether the accused had benefited from the alleged extortion.

When the Court asked who had received the money in the case, Raghavan said,

"We don't know. The complaint doesn't show the accused received the money."

When asked whether the assertion was that the Finance Minister and others had not received any money personally, the Raghavan said,

"It is not their case that this money has been received by them or at their direction it has been paid."