Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Former Zee Media Head in Extortion Case, Cites Limits of 'Mini-Trial'

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Ashish Dave, former Channel Head of Zee Rajasthan, seeking to quash an FIR lodged against him by his former employer, Zee Media, for alleged extortion, cheating, and criminal breach of trust.

In a significant ruling on the scope of judicial review, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the court cannot conduct a "mini-trial" or a "roving enquiry" into the allegations at the FIR stage. The court affirmed that since the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offense, the investigation must be allowed to proceed.

Background of the Case

The case revolves around an FIR filed by Zee Media against Ashish Dave, who held a senior position as Channel Head. The company alleged that it had received multiple complaints from third parties indicating that Dave was misusing his authority and the company's platform.

The FIR alleges that Dave demanded "monetary favours from various vendors and entities under the threat of broadcasting negative or damaging news content" on Zee's channels. Zee Media claimed these unauthorized actions caused "irreparable harm to the Company’s credibility, integrity, and reputation." Consequently, an FIR was registered under Sections 308 (2), 318(4), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ), 2023.

Dave approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNS S), 2023 (equivalent to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.), to have the FIR quashed.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Counsel (Ashish Dave):

* Argued that a bare reading of the FIR does not reveal any cognizable offense.

* Contended that Zee Media is not the actual victim, as none of the alleged victims of extortion had come forward to file a complaint.

* Claimed the dispute was essentially between an employer and an employee.

* Stated that offenses like criminal breach of trust were not made out, as the company's "goodwill" cannot be considered "property" under the BNS .

* Invoked the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , arguing the FIR was an abuse of the process of law.

Respondent's Counsel (State and Zee Media):

* The Advocate General argued that Dave had misused his senior position, and his actions amounted to "yellow journalism and blackmailing."

* Maintained that the FIR clearly discloses a cognizable offense that warrants a thorough investigation.

* Counsel for Zee Media submitted that the FIR was lodged after receiving several complaints and that the investigation should not be stifled at a nascent stage.

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles Applied

The Court began its judgment by underscoring the vital role of the media as the "fourth pillar of democracy," but also emphasized the immense responsibility that comes with such power.

Justice Dhand's analysis focused on the limited jurisdiction of the High Court when asked to quash an FIR. The court reiterated the settled legal position that its role is not to determine the truth or falsity of the allegations but only to ascertain if they prima facie constitute a cognizable offense.

The judgment extensively cited Supreme Court precedents, including Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P. , to reinforce that quashing powers should be exercised sparingly and in the "rarest of rare cases."

The court highlighted a key excerpt from the Supreme Court's ruling in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh and Others :

> "As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial."

Applying these principles, the High Court observed that the allegations against Dave were serious and required investigation. The court noted that during the investigation, statements of several witnesses had already been recorded, who alleged that an illegal demand for money was made by the petitioner.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court concluded that the allegations in the FIR, when taken at face value, constitute a cognizable offense. It refused to delve into the petitioner's claims of innocence, stating that these are matters for the Investigating Officer to consider.

In its concluding remarks, the court stated:

> "This Court finds that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the impugned FIR constitute commission of a cognizable offence. Whether allegations made in the FIR against the petitioner are correct, genuine or true, the same is the subject-matter of investigation..."

The petition to quash the FIR was dismissed, allowing the police investigation to continue. The court, however, granted the petitioner liberty to submit a representation to the Investigating Officer regarding any concerns about the fairness of the investigation.