MP HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Journalist Accused Of Extortion, Says Prior Exposés No Shield

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, has dismissed a petition seeking quashment of an FIR registered against a journalist accused of extortion, holding that allegations of mala fide or a background of investigative journalism cannot by themselves justify quashing a case at the threshold.

Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta was hearing a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Shashikant Jatav alias Shashikant Goyal alias Shashi Kapoor, a journalist with the Bejod Ratna newspaper, who sought quashing of FIR No. 53 of 2025 registered at Police Station Endori, District Bhind, under Sections 308(2), 308(4), 308(6), 308(7), 296, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (corresponding to 384, 387, 389, 388, 294, 506 and 34 of the IPC).

The FIR was lodged on a complaint filed by Kaptan Singh Kushwaha, Sarpanch of the Sherpur Gram Panchayat, who alleged that the petitioner and another journalist, Pritam Singh, had approached him eight to nine months earlier and threatened to publish false news and file complaints against his work at the panchayat unless he paid them Rs 50,000.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Rahul Bansal argued that the FIR was nothing but retaliation. He submitted that Goyal had, through two articles published in Bejod Ratna on May 28 and June 5, 2024, exposed a scam of Rs 25 lakh in the Sherpur Gram Panchayat, leading to the suspension of officials and attachment of panchayat property. According to the petitioner, the complaint against him surfaced only after this exposé, and with an unexplained delay of eight to nine months, pointing to malice.

Bansal further submitted that the FIR was registered without a preliminary inquiry, a day after the petitioner secured a protection order from the Supreme Court. He alleged a pattern in which Superintendent of Police, Bhind, Dr Asit Yadav, targeted journalists critical of the local administration, including an incident where the petitioner and fellow journalist Amarkant Singh Chouhan were purportedly summoned, assaulted, and coerced into recording a video statement claiming the dispute stood "resolved." The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's guidelines in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. to argue the allegations were "so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could reach a just conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding."

Opposing the petition, government advocate B.K. Tyagi, along with advocate Vijay Kumar Jha for Dr Asit Yadav, IPS, argued that the petitioner was not a victim but an "opportunist" who had misused his position as a journalist to extort money, and that the plea rested on "false and frivolous" allegations meant to shield him from prosecution. They cited a Special Information notice from the Inspector General of Police, Chambal Zone, warning the public against an alleged organised gang of YouTubers and WhatsApp news channels extorting money from Sarpanches, teachers, and Anganwadi workers under threat of adverse coverage, an offence carrying punishment of up to life imprisonment.

The Court, after examining the record, held that the FIR disclosed "specific imputations regarding extortion and threats made to a local public functionary," and that while the petitioner's claim of retaliatory action could not be brushed aside outright, the State's material pointing to a wider pattern of alleged extortion by local media persons could not be ignored either.

Holding that such contested factual questions were best left to trial, the Court observed that the "defense of mala fides, institutional friction, or prior journalistic exposés are matters of evidentiary value that require proper testing during trial and cannot serve as grounds for a summary termination of criminal proceedings." It added that extraordinary powers under Article 226 or Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (Section 482 of CrPC)  ought not to be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution where allegations, prima facie, disclose a cognizable offence.

The petition was accordingly dismissed, and the Court vacated interim orders, clarifying that its observations were confined to disposal of the present petition and would not prejudice either party's rights or contentions during the course of the trial.

Case Title: Shashikant Jatav alias Shashikant Goyal alias Shashi Kapoor vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: July 30, 2026

Bench: Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta