High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Solar Project Extortion Case
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court delivered a significant verdict on Monday, quashing the entire criminal proceedings against businessman Nikant Jain in a high-profile extortion and corruption case connected to a proposed solar power project. The court firmly held that no offence was established under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) or the Prevention of Corruption Act, bringing a decisive end to the legal battle.
Court Sets Aside Key Legal Documents
Justice Rajeev Singh, presiding over the case, allowed Jain's petition and set aside several critical legal documents. These included the charge sheet dated May 15, 2025, the summoning order dated May 17, 2025, and the order dated November 6, 2025, by which a special court had rejected his discharge application. The court's ruling effectively dismantled the prosecution's case from its foundation.
The court observed that the very basis of the prosecution collapsed after the complainant himself admitted that the complaint was filed under a "wrong impression". This admission played a pivotal role in the court's decision, highlighting a fundamental flaw in the initiation of the criminal proceedings.
Background of the Case and Allegations
The case originated from an FIR lodged at the Gomtinagar police station on March 20, 2025. The complaint was based on allegations made by Vishwajeet Dutta, who represented a company in a letter addressed to the chief secretary. Dutta alleged that there was a demand for 5% of the project cost to secure clearance for a solar manufacturing proposal.
The FIR was registered under:
- Section 308(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which pertains to extortion by threat of death or grievous hurt.
- Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, dealing with offences related to bribery and abetment.
Defense Arguments and Investigation Lapses
Senior counsel for Nikant Jain, Purnendu Chakraborty, presented a robust defense, arguing that the allegations were vague and unsupported by concrete evidence. Chakraborty contended that the case stemmed from business rivalry and administrative misunderstandings, rather than any criminal intent or action.
The defense emphasized several key points:
- No money was ever paid in relation to the alleged demand.
- No property or valuable security was delivered as part of any transaction.
- No threats were issued to coerce or induce any party.
Furthermore, the defense highlighted serious lapses in the police investigation. These included the failure to prepare a proper site plan and the absence of any recovery of evidence, despite claims that Rs 1 crore in cash was involved. Such investigative shortcomings undermined the credibility of the case.
Court's Findings and Complainant's Admission
The High Court meticulously examined the evidence and found that the investigation failed to establish any delivery of property or inducement by threat. There was no material to show that Jain offered or promised any undue advantage to a public servant, which is essential to attract offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In a crucial development, Vishwajeet Dutta filed a counter-affidavit on December 10, 2025, admitting that the complaint was filed due to confusion and misunderstanding. Dutta acknowledged that approvals from YEIDA and UPPCL regarding land and electricity subsidy were still pending, leading to the deferment of the project. He also explicitly admitted that no money was paid to Nikant Jain, further weakening the prosecution's stance.
Conclusion: Abuse of Process Prevented
Holding that the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the Court quashed the FIR, charge sheet, summoning order, and all consequential proceedings. This ruling not only exonerates Nikant Jain but also serves as a reminder of the judicial system's role in preventing miscarriages of justice based on unsubstantiated claims.
The decision underscores the importance of thorough investigation and credible evidence in criminal cases, particularly those involving serious allegations like extortion and corruption. It marks a significant legal victory for Jain and sets a precedent for similar cases where complaints may arise from misunderstandings or rivalries rather than criminal conduct.
