Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Former Zee Channel Head, Slams Rajasthan Police For ‘Vague’ Extortion Case

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the proceedings, expressing “shock” at the manner in which the FIR had been registered.

The court observed that the allegations amounted to little more than a “story” without specific details of extortion, victims or instances of misuse of position.

“This FIR contains nothing. Simply because the complainant is an influential agency, FIR was registered. What is this FIR? Such FIRs cannot be allowed,” the bench remarked. Justice Mehta added that if a common citizen approached a police station with similar allegations, “he would be thrown out.”

The court said, “Even Instagram stories are better than this FIR,” underscoring the absence of concrete material in the complaint.

The case arose from an FIR lodged in Jaipur on the basis of a complaint by Zee Media, alleging that Dave had misused his position as Channel Head to extort money from individuals and entities by threatening to air negative news coverage. It was claimed that adverse content was broadcast or circulated without authorisation as part of the alleged coercion.

Appearing for Dave, Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal argued that not a single alleged victim had come forward to lodge a complaint and that the FIR failed to disclose the essential ingredients of extortion or criminal breach of trust. The State was represented by ASG S.D. Sanjay, while Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain appeared for the complainant.

During the hearing, the Bench repeatedly questioned the State on the absence of specific allegations in the FIR. “Which particular allegation of extortion, which particular offence of misuse of position was set out in the FIR?” Justice Mehta asked, adding that the investigating officer ought to have conducted a preliminary inquiry before registering the case. Referring to the Constitution bench ruling in Lalita Kumari, the court observed that while registration of FIRs is mandatory in cognisable offences, the complaint must still disclose a cognisable offence with adequate particulars.

When the ASG submitted that material had been gathered during the investigation and that several builders and professionals had complained of extortion, the Court pointed out that not a single “victim” was named in the FIR or in the State’s response. The Bench declined to examine the case diary produced in sealed cover.

“What was the hot haste to register the FIR?” Justice Mehta asked. “Why could you not confirm the allegations first?”

The court also criticised what it described as preferential treatment. “Simply because the complainant happens to be an influential agency, you registered the FIR just like that. Police opened red carpets,” the bench said, likening the approach to a “James Bond” script: “shoot first, think later.”

The Rajasthan High Court had earlier, in November 2025, refused to quash the FIR, holding that the allegations disclosed a cognisable offence and warranted investigation. It had noted that statements of witnesses were on record and that media professionals are expected to avoid threats or extortion.

Case Title: Ashish Dave v. State of Rajasthan