‘No role’: Uttarakhand High Court quashes extortion case against man over ex-CM ‘sting’

“The continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner cannot be justified. The allegations contained in the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not disclose any specific overt act on the part of the petitioner constituting the offences punishable under Sections 386 or 388 (extortion) of the IPC,” the court said on September 8.

The order noted that mere assertion that the CEO had informed the reporter that the petitioner would assist him in securing an appointment with the then chief minister, without any further allegation of threat, extortion, putting the informant in fear of injury, or participation in the alleged criminal conspiracy, cannot by itself constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner.

Justice Alok Mahra said the probe had already concluded and a chargesheet had been filed against two other accused.

‘Threats’ over failed sting op

The case arose from an FIR registered in 2018 at Rajpur Police Station in Dehradun for extortion and criminal conspiracy. The FIR, lodged by a reporter of Samachar Plus news channel, alleged that the channel’s CEO had assigned him to conduct a sting operation on Rawat. According to the reporter, the petitioner was among those whom the CEO said could help him secure an appointment with the chief minister.

The petitioner approached the high court seeking quashing of the FIR, arguing that no specific role, threat, demand for money or other overt act was attributed to him. During investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the channel’s CEO and another person on March 25, 2019, but no incriminating material was found against the petitioner, and he was not charged.

Appearing for the state, additional government advocate Akshay Latwal acknowledged that no incriminating material was found against the petitioner, although 10 investigating officers had taken up the probe.

Nothing to link him to offences: Court

The high court observed that the FIR did not disclose any specific overt act by the petitioner that could constitute the offences. Simply stating that the channel’s CEO had told the reporter that he could help arrange an appointment with the then chief minister was not sufficient.

The judge noted that there was no allegation that the petitioner had threatened or intimidated the informant, demanded money, put him in fear of injury, or participated in the alleged criminal conspiracy. “There is no legitimate basis for permitting the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioner merely based on a reference to his name in the FIR particularly when no specific role has been attributed to him,” it said.

“The petitioner cannot be compelled to face the rigours and uncertainty of criminal proceedings in the absence of any prima facie material connecting him with the alleged offences,” the judge stated.

The court underlined that the investigation had already concluded and a chargesheet had been filed against two other accused, while no incriminating material had been found against the petitioner and he had not been charged. It also noted that the FIR dated back to 2018 and the chargesheet against the other accused had been filed on March 25, 2019.