Bengaluru, Sep 30 (Reporter) The Karnataka High Court on Monday stayed further investigation into extortion charges against Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and other BJP leaders, highlighting that 'for extortion to be established, the complainant must have been placed in fear'. The court stressed this "fear factor" as central to determining the validity of the complaint filed by activist Adarsh Iyer, who alleged that Sitharaman, BJP President JP Nadda, and others, in coordination with Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials, pressured private firms into making donations through the Electoral Bonds Scheme. Justice M Nagaprasanna, who heard the case, observed that criminal law could be initiated by anyone, but in extortion cases, it must be the person affected who sets the process in motion. The judge stated, "Section 383 mandates that any informant should have been put into fear. It is only then extortion can be established. Criminal law can be set into motion by any person. But in cases of 384, it can be set into motion only by the aggrieved ... Who is the complainant here becomes significant." "In this case, permitting further proceedings atleast until the objections have been filed will become an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, further proceedings are stayed until the next date," Justice Nagaprasanna argued. The complaint, which accused the BJP members of using ED raids to extort money from firms such as Vedanta, Sterlite, and Aurobindo Pharma, claimed that companies were coerced into donating to the ruling party via electoral bonds. In response, BJP leader Nalin Kumar Kateel, one of the accused, petitioned the court, arguing that the charges were false and politically motivated. His lawyer, Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, termed the complaint "frivolous" and "an abuse of the process of law." Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Iyer, argued that the case at hand was perfectly valid, asserting that no plea could be raised at this stage regarding the need for sanction, which, he noted, should be addressed only when the court takes cognisance. He contended that the current argument presented by the defence was merely that it was not a case of extortion, countering that it represented "the most classic case of extortion." Bhushan elaborated that if ever there was a case of extortion, this was it, pointing out that instilling "the fear of arrest and raids" in the minds of companies to compel them to contribute electoral bonds to the party controlling the ED, which then halts its actions, constituted classic extortion. The Court, noting that proceeding with the investigation without addressing these objections would be problematic, stayed further action until October 22...////...