5 days ago
Uttarakhand High Court Quashes Extortion Case Linked to Sting
A reporter was asked to conduct a sting operation involving then chief minister Trivendra Singh Rawat.
The reporter said he was threatened when he did not do it.
A man had helped the reporter arrange a meeting with Rawat.
The man was named in a police case about extortion and conspiracy.
The Uttarakhand High Court said the case did not explain what illegal act the man had committed.
It found no evidence that he threatened anyone or asked for money.
Investigators also found no incriminating material against him.
The court therefore stopped the criminal case against him.
Two other people had been charged in the wider investigation.
The Uttarakhand High Court quashed a 2018 extortion and criminal conspiracy case against a man linked to a proposed sting operation.
The petitioner had helped a Samachar Plus reporter secure an appointment with then Uttarakhand chief minister Trivendra Singh Rawat.
The reporter alleged that the channel’s CEO and the petitioner threatened his career and life if he did not conduct the sting.
Justice Alok Mahra found no specific allegation that the petitioner threatened the reporter, demanded money, or joined a criminal conspiracy.
The court noted that investigators found no incriminating material against the petitioner, while a chargesheet was filed against two other accused in 2019.
- Who
- The petitioner, a Samachar Plus reporter, the channel’s CEO, and then chief minister Trivendra Singh Rawat were involved in the case; Justice Alok Mahra issued the ruling.
- What
- The Uttarakhand High Court quashed the extortion and criminal conspiracy case against the petitioner.
- Where
- The FIR was registered at Rajpur Police Station in Dehradun, Uttarakhand, and the matter was decided by the Uttarakhand High Court.
- When
- The FIR was registered in 2018; a chargesheet against two other accused was filed on March 25, 2019; the court issued its order on September 8.
- Why
- The court found that the FIR assigned the petitioner no specific criminal role and that the investigation found no incriminating material against him.
Court and Petitioner’s Position
Reporter’s Allegations
Petitioner’s role
Court and Petitioner’s Position
The petitioner argued, and the court agreed, that merely helping arrange an appointment did not establish extortion, threats, or criminal conspiracy.
Reporter’s Allegations
The reporter identified the petitioner as someone the channel’s CEO said could help arrange the meeting for the proposed sting operation.
Threats and extortion
Court and Petitioner’s Position
The court found no direct allegation or evidence that the petitioner threatened or intimidated the reporter, demanded money, or placed him in fear of injury.
Reporter’s Allegations
The reporter alleged that the CEO and the petitioner threatened to ruin his career and kill him if he did not carry out the sting.
Continuation of proceedings
Court and Petitioner’s Position
The court said continuing the case would be unjustified because no specific overt act or prima facie material connected the petitioner to the alleged offences.
Reporter’s Allegations
The criminal case arose from the reporter’s 2018 complaint concerning alleged threats over the failed sting operation.
Key facts
- Case registration
- 2018, at Rajpur Police Station in Dehradun
- Alleged offences
- Extortion under Sections 386 and 388 of the Indian Penal Code, along with criminal conspiracy
- Petitioner’s alleged role
- Helping a reporter secure an appointment with then chief minister Trivendra Singh Rawat
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
- Judge
- Justice Alok Mahra
- Other accused
- A chargesheet was filed against the news channel’s CEO and another person on March 25, 2019
- Investigation finding
- No incriminating material was found against the petitioner
Quotes
Uttarakhand High Court
The court explaining why the criminal proceedings could not continue
“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.”
indianexpress.com
“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.”
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
High Court Gives Kirti Azad Six-Month Arrest Protection
TMC MP Kirti Azad Booked in Bengal Extortion Case
Former OSD Booked After Realtor Alleges Assault, Extortion Threats
Three More Held in Sumanth Extortion Case Investigation
Supreme Court to Hear Abhishek Upadhyay’s Ghaziabad FIR Plea
Chhattisgarh High Court Cuts Fake Police Extortionist’s Jail Term
PM Modi Wishes Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami
Telangana BJP Chief Alleges Congress Is Synonymous With Corruption
Uttarakhand Media Delegation Visits Gevra Mine’s Coal, Green Operations
Kishau Dam Agreement Called Historic for Haryana, States Sign Deal
Beneficiary States to Bear Himachal’s Rs 2,000 Crore Power Cost
