Recently, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dealt with a plea filed by a journalist who alleged that criminal proceedings initiated against him were part of a larger attempt to suppress his reporting on illegal activities and intimidate him through police action.
The matter stemmed from an FIR lodged on the complaint of a doctor from Bhind, who alleged that the journalist and another person approached him at his clinic and demanded monthly payments while threatening adverse media coverage regarding the functioning of the clinic. The complaint further referred to messages and news material allegedly sent to the doctor through WhatsApp.
Before the Court, the Petitioner claimed that the FIR was motivated by mala fide intentions and linked it to his reporting on illegal sand mining activities and alleged misconduct by local police officials. He also alleged that he and other journalists were assaulted, subjected to intimidation, and later pressured into compromise attempts after raising issues against the police administration.
The State opposed the plea and argued that the allegations were based on specific complaints accusing the petitioner of extortion and misuse of journalism as a means to pressure individuals. It was further contended that disputed factual issues were involved which required investigation and trial.
While considering the matter, the High Court observed that “If an information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the existence of a personal grudge or ulterior motive of the complainant/police is not a sufficient ground to stifle a legitimate investigation at its threshold.”
The Court further noted that questions regarding whether the alleged demand for money was actually made, and whether the acts complained of amounted to journalism or extortion, were disputed issues of fact that could not be conclusively examined in writ jurisdiction.
Ultimately, the High Court declined to interfere with the FIR and dismissed the petition while clarifying that the observations made in the order were only for deciding the quashing plea and would not affect the investigation or trial proceedings.
Case Title: Shashikant Jatav @ Shashikant Goyal @ Shashi Kapoor v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 34590 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Shri Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sameer Kumar Shrivastava
Advocate for the Respondent/State: Mr. Ankur Modi, Additional Advocate General, Mr. M.P.S. Raghuvanshi with Mr. Mohammad Amir Khan
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
