Lucknow High Court Dismisses Criminal Proceedings in Solar Project Extortion Case
In a landmark judicial decision, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has completely quashed all criminal proceedings against businessman Nikant Jain in a high-profile extortion and corruption case connected to a solar power project. The Court ruled that no offence could be established under either the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) or the Prevention of Corruption Act, noting that the case's foundation collapsed after the complainant admitted filing the complaint under a "wrong impression."
Judicial Order and Legal Proceedings
Justice Rajeev Singh delivered the order while allowing an application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The application sought the quashing of the charge sheet dated May 15, 2025, the summoning order dated May 17, 2025, and the rejection of Jain's discharge application by a special court on November 6, 2025. This comprehensive dismissal marks a significant victory for the defense and highlights critical flaws in the prosecution's case.
Background and Initial Allegations
The case originated from FIR No. 111 of 2025 registered at Gomti Nagar police station in Lucknow. The charges included Section 308(5) of the BNS, which pertains to extortion by threat of death or grievous hurt, along with Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The FIR was lodged on March 20, 2025, based on a written complaint submitted to the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh by a representative of M/s SAEL Solar P6 Pvt. Ltd.
The complainant, Vishwajeet Dutta, alleged that his company had applied through Invest UP to establish a large solar manufacturing unit under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Investment and Employment Promotion Policy, 2022. Dutta claimed that an Invest UP officer provided him with Nikant Jain's contact details, suggesting Jain could facilitate approval from the Empowered Committee and the Cabinet. The complaint further alleged that Jain demanded a 5% advance of the project cost for proposal clearance.
Defense Arguments and Legal Strategy
Senior counsel Purnendu Chakraborty, representing Nikant Jain, argued that the case stemmed from business rivalry and a profound misunderstanding. The defense emphasized that Jain is a law-abiding businessman with a history of false implications in multiple cases, most of which had been closed or resulted in bail. Crucially, the defense contended that no money was ever paid, no property or valuable security was delivered, and no threats were issued—essential elements required to constitute extortion under Section 308(5) of the BNS.
Furthermore, the applicant's counsel asserted that there was no evidence to support charges under Sections 8 or 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as the prosecution failed to demonstrate that Jain offered or promised any undue advantage to a public servant. Despite investigation claims that ₹1 crore in cash had been taken, searches of Jain's residence and bank accounts revealed no such amount. The defense also highlighted serious investigative lapses, including the failure to prepare a mandatory site plan under Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations and the complainant's repeated non-cooperation with investigators.
Complainant's Crucial Admission
A pivotal moment in the case occurred when the complainant, Vishwajeet Dutta, submitted a counter-affidavit dated December 10, 2025, to the High Court. In this document, Dutta admitted that the complaint had been filed due to "confusion and misunderstanding." He conceded that he was unaware at the time that approvals from the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) and Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL) regarding land and electricity subsidy were pending, which were the actual reasons for the project's deferral.
Dutta also categorically stated that no money was ever paid to Nikant Jain, effectively undermining the core allegation of extortion.
Court's Detailed Findings and Rationale
After meticulously examining the case diary, investigation records, affidavits, and official documents from Invest UP and YEIDA, the Court reached several key conclusions:
- No Evidence of Extortion: There was no proof of delivery of property or valuable security, a mandatory requirement to establish extortion under the law.
- Lack of Corruption Evidence: No material indicated that the applicant offered or promised any undue advantage to a public servant, failing to meet the criteria of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Complainant's Admissions: The complainant's own statements demolished the foundational basis of the FIR, rendering the charges unsustainable.
- Flawed Investigation: The investigation was conducted in a mechanical and erroneous manner, compromising its integrity and reliability.
- Trial Court Error: The trial court failed to properly evaluate the evidence while rejecting the discharge application, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
This ruling not only exonerates Nikant Jain but also serves as a critical reminder of the importance of thorough evidence and procedural integrity in criminal proceedings. The Court's decision underscores the necessity for allegations to be substantiated with concrete proof, especially in cases involving serious charges like extortion and corruption.
