A Bengaluru FIR naming Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and BJP officials followed a special court’s direction on a private complaint alleging extortion and criminal conspiracy involving electoral bonds. The FIR and the direction to investigate were not findings that the named people committed those offences. The Karnataka High Court later quashed the case, and the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging that order on February 3, 2025.
How the FIR began
On September 28, 2024, Bengaluru police registered the FIR after a special court directed them to act on a private complaint filed by Adarsh Iyer of Janadhikara Sangharsha Parishath. Reports said the FIR named Sitharaman, Enforcement Directorate officials, and BJP office-bearers at state and national levels. The complaint alleged that the accused used the electoral bond scheme to commit extortion and criminal conspiracy; these were allegations, not established findings. (The Indian Express; The New Indian Express; Deccan Herald.)
The New Indian Express reported the case as FIR No. 0224/2024, citing sections 384, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Other reports identified sections 384 and 120B. Section 384 concerns punishment for extortion, while section 120B concerns criminal conspiracy; the cited sections describe the allegations recorded in the FIR, not proof of them. (The New Indian Express.)
What the complaint alleged—and what it did not establish
The complainant reportedly alleged that the accused benefited by ₹8,000 crore or more through the scheme. That figure is an allegation attributed to the complainant, not a verified total or a court finding. (Deccan Herald.)
The Supreme Court had struck down the electoral bond scheme in February 2024. That constitutional ruling concerned the scheme; it did not determine whether the separate extortion and conspiracy allegations in this private complaint were true. (Supreme Court Observer.)
What happened in court afterward
| Stage | What happened | What it meant |
|---|---|---|
| Private complaint and FIR | A special court directed police to act on the complaint; police registered the FIR on September 28, 2024. | The complaint initiated a police case. Neither the direction nor the FIR established guilt. |
| Karnataka High Court | The court stayed proceedings on September 30, 2024; later contemporaneous reporting said it quashed the case. | The interim stay paused proceedings, and the later quashing set aside the case. These procedural steps should not be confused with a finding that the complaint’s allegations were true. |
| Supreme Court appeal | On February 3, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging the High Court’s order. | The dismissal left the reported High Court order in place. The Indian Express reported that the bench described the complaint as “based on assumptions.” |
Sources: Bar & Bench; LiveLaw; The Indian Express.
Could someone still bring a case with evidence?
Bangalore Mirror reported that the Supreme Court clarified its dismissal would not prevent a person with material evidence from bringing a case. That clarification does not establish that such evidence exists or that another proceeding was filed. (Bangalore Mirror.)
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What is known about the latest status
The latest sourced event here is the Supreme Court’s February 3, 2025 dismissal of the appeal. An official current docket status as of October 8, 2026 has not been confirmed, so this account does not establish whether any later proceeding occurred. The eCourts portal offers case and party searches but requires interactive inputs and a captcha. (eCourts.)
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
