JUDGMENT :

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:-

“(i) to issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned first information report, registered against the Petitioner by Respondent no. 5, as FIR/ Case Crime No.0310/2022, under section 342, 386, 504 and 506 IPC, and 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station-Indira Nagar, District-Lucknow on 29.10.2022, contained in Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition;

(ii) to issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the Respondents not to proceed, prosecute, or arrest the Petitioner on the basis of the impugned FIR registered against the Petitioner by Respondent no.5 as FIR/Case Crime No.0310/2022, under section 342, 386, 504 and 506 IPC, and 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station-Indira Nagar, District-Lucknow on 29.10.2022, contained in Annexure no.1 to the writ petition; in the alternative at least without complying with the mandatory statutory provision as contained under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act or till the submission of charge-sheet, whichever is later”

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 Section 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 Section 384 IPC may be attracted, however, the petitioner is denying the aforesaid allegation, but in that case, the punishment under those sections 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 Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Secondly, no FIR against the present petitioner can be lodged in view of the bar of Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “P.C. Act”).

4. Dr. Misra has further submitted that since the FIR has been lodged under Section 7 of P.C. Act besides other sections of IPC, therefore, compliance of Section 17-A of P.C. Act would be mandatory. Sections 7 & 17-A of P.C. Act are being reproduced herein below:-

[7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed.-- Any public servant who,--

(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or

(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or

(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

[17A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties.--No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry o