Allahabad HC quashes extortion case against businessman in solar project row

LUCKNOW: In a significant ruling, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has quashed the entire criminal proceedings, including the charge sheet and summoning order, against businessman Nikant Jain in a high-profile extortion and corruption case linked to a solar power project.

The Court held that no offence was made out under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) or the Prevention of Corruption Act and observed that the very foundation of the case stood demolished after the complainant himself admitted that the complaint was filed under a “wrong impression.”


The order was passed by Justice Rajeev Singh while allowing Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), filed by Jain seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated May 15, 2025, the summoning order dated May 17, 2025, and the rejection of his discharge application by a special court on November 6, 2025.
Background of the Case

The case arose from FIR No. 111 of 2025 registered at Gomti Nagar police station, Lucknow, under Section 308(5) of the BNS (extortion by threat of death or grievous hurt) and Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The FIR was lodged on March 20, 2025, on the basis of 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 for setting up a large solar manufacturing unit under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Investment and Employment Promotion Policy, 2022.

It was claimed that an officer of Invest UP provided him with Nikant Jain’s phone number, stating that Jain could facilitate approval of the project by the Empowered Committee and the Cabinet. The complainant alleged that Jain demanded 5% of the project cost as an advance for clearance of the proposal.
Applicant’s arguments
Senior counsel appearing for Nikant Jain, Purnendu Chakraborty argued that the case was a result of business rivalry and misunderstanding. It was submitted that Jain is a law-abiding businessman with a history of being falsely implicated in multiple cases, most of which had either been closed or resulted in bail.

The defence contended that no money was ever paid, no property or valuable security was delivered, and no threat was issued—essential ingredients required to constitute the offence of extortion under Section 308(5) BNS.

The applicant’s counsel further argued that there was no evidence to attract Sections 8 or 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as the prosecution failed to show that Jain offered or promised any undue advantage to any public servant. It was also pointed out that despite claims during investigation that ₹1 crore in cash had been taken, no such amount was found either during house searches or in Jain’s bank accounts.

Serious lapses in investigation were also highlighted, including the failure to prepare a site plan at the outset as mandated under the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations and the complainant’s repeated non-cooperation with the investigating officer.

Complainant’s admission
A crucial turning point in the case came when the complainant Dutta, in his counter-affidavit dated December 10, 2025, admitted before the High Court 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 was the actual reason for the project being deferred.

The complainant also categorically admitted that no money was ever paid to Nikant Jain.

Court’s findings
After examining the case diary, investigation records, affidavits, and official documents from Invest UP and YEIDA, the Court held that:

• There was no evidence of delivery of property or valuable security, a mandatory requirement to establish extortion.
• There was no material to show that the applicant offered or promised any undue advantage to a public servant.
• The complainant’s own admissions demolished the basis of the FIR.
• The investigation was conducted in a mechanical and flawed manner.
• The trial court failed to properly evaluate the evidence while rejecting the discharge application.