VINAY PATHAK Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Dr. L.P. Misra, assisted by Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri S.N. Tilhari, learned counsel for the State and Sri I.B. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Ashmita Singh, learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party no.5.

(2.) By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following main reliefs:-

(3.) The main contention to assail the impugned FIR are two fold. Firstly, no specific allegation against the present petitioner has been levelled to constitute, prima facie, offence under Sec. 386 IPC. Even otherwise, no offence as alleged in the FIR is, prima facie, made out against the petitioner. If the allegation regarding extortion of money is taken on its face value, as per the allegation of the FIR, in that case too, at the best offence under Sec. 384 IPC may be attracted, however, the petitioner is denying the aforesaid allegation, but in that case, the punishment under those Sec. would be below seven years and the investigation may be conducted as per the directions and guidelines of the Apex Court in re; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, by giving prior notice under Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. Secondly, no FIR against the present petitioner can be lodged in view of the bar of Sec. 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "P.C. Act").