MP High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Journalist Accused Of Extortion

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash an FIR lodged against journalist Shashikant Jatav alias Shashikant Goyal alias Shashi Kapoor, who has been accused of extortion by a doctor in Bhind district, while observing that allegations of mala fide intent cannot by themselves justify interference when a cognizable offence is disclosed on the face of the complaint.

Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta dismissed the writ petition challenging FIR No. 214 of 2025 registered at City Kotwali Police Station, Bhind, under Sections 3(5) and 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (corresponding to Sections 34 and 384 of IPC). The Court held that disputed questions surrounding the allegations could not be examined in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

According to the prosecution, complainant Dr. Harmendra Singh Kushwaha alleged that on April 30, 2025, the petitioner and another journalist visited his Bhoomi Clinic and accused him of illegally practising allopathy despite possessing only a BAMS qualification. The complaint alleged that the petitioner demanded Rs. 5,000 per month and threatened to publish repeated news reports against the clinic if the demand was not met.

The FIR was registered after police found prima facie material suggesting offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The complaint also referred to a news article published in the Bejod Ratna newspaper on May 1, 2025, authored by the petitioner, concerning the functioning of the complainant’s clinic.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Sameer Kumar Shrivastava argued that the FIR was a retaliatory action linked to the journalist’s reporting on illegal sand mining activities in the Chambal region and alleged police misconduct. The plea claimed that Bhind police officials, including Superintendent of Police Asit Yadav, had physically assaulted the petitioner and other journalists and later attempted to coerce them into compromise statements.

The petitioner further told the Court that complaints regarding the alleged assault had been moved before the Press Council of India and the National Human Rights Commission, while the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court had also granted protection in connected proceedings. It was argued that the criminal case was intended to create a “chilling effect” on independent journalism and free speech protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Opposing the petition, Additional Advocate General Ankur Modi, appearing for the State, contended that the petitioner was misusing the profession of journalism for blackmail and extortion. Senior Advocate M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, assisted by Advocate Mohammad Amir Khan for the complainant, argued that the allegations involved serious disputed facts requiring investigation and trial.

The State further submitted that multiple complaints had been received against the petitioner and his associates and that public notices warning citizens about alleged extortion attempts had already been issued. It was also argued that the petitioner had approached different courts without fully disclosing material facts.

Refusing to interfere, 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 whether the WhatsApp messages and publications constituted legitimate journalism or extortion could only be examined during investigation and trial. Holding that the case did not fall within the principles laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal for quashing criminal proceedings, the Court dismissed the petition while clarifying that its observations would not affect the merits of the trial.

The Court also observed that allegations concerning custodial misconduct by police officials were already subject to separate proceedings and inquiries before competent forums, including the National Human Rights Commission, and therefore could not become a ground to halt investigation into an independent complaint filed by a private individual.

While rejecting the plea, the Bench clarified that the petitioner would remain free to raise all factual defences at the appropriate stage and that the observations contained in the order were limited only to deciding the quashing petition before trial.

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

Date of Order: May 15, 2026

Bench: Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta