MP High Court Dismisses Vexatious PIL Seeking FIR Against Police Officer, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Exemplary Costs - 2025-12-03

Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Fine on Petitioner for 'Glaring Abuse' of PIL Process

In a stinging rebuke to the misuse of judicial forums, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to compel police action against a Reserve Inspector. Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, presiding over the matter, characterized the petition as a "glaring example of abuse" of the PIL process, aimed at settling personal scores rather than seeking public justice.

The Background of the Dispute

The petitioner, Sachin Sisodiya, had filed a petition requesting the court to direct the police to register an FIR against respondent Rahul Chouhan, while also targeting Reserve Inspector Saurabh Kushwaha. However, the court discovered that this was not a fresh grievance.

The legal history revealed that the "victim" in the case, Rahul Chouhan, had himself previously approached the court. His petition was later withdrawn after he arrived at a compromise. Furthermore, another individual named Arun had filed a nearly identical PIL for the same relief, which was similarly withdrawn after being confronted by the court.

Arguments and Judicial Scrutiny

The State counsel strongly objected to the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the litigation was born of personal vengeance and was intended to blackmail the private respondent. To support this, the State presented screenshots of social media posts, which the court accepted as evidence of the petitioner's ulterior motives.

The court noted with irony that one of the legal counsels involved in the present petition had also appeared in a previously dismissed similar petition, signaling a coordinated effort by, as the court termed them, "unscrupulous petitioners."

Legal Precedents and Reasoning

Justice Shukla relied heavily on the landmark ruling in State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) , which mandates that courts must "encourage genuine and bona fide PIL" while suppressing those filed with "oblique motives."

The bench also cited Gurpal Singh vs. State of Punjab , reinforcing the principle that when a specific person is the object of a PIL, the court must meticulously distinguish between true public interest and a mask for private vendetta. "Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions," the court observed.

Key Observations

The ruling underscores the judiciary's increasing intolerance toward "professional" litigants. Some of the Court’s key observations included:

• "Prima facie we are satisfied that the present petition is an glaring example of abuse of Public Interest Litigation."
• "The Courts should ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs..."
• "When a particular person is the object and target of a petition styled as PIL, the court has to be careful to see whether the attack in the guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta."

Final Outcome: A Costly Lesson

Finding the petition to be a malicious use of judicial time, the High Court dismissed the suit and imposed an exemplary cost of ₹1,00,000 . The petitioner is required to pay this amount to the High Court Legal Aid Services Authority, Indore, within one month. The funds are earmarked for upgrading the High Court Dispensary.

In a stern warning, the court added that should the petitioner fail to remit the fine within the stipulated timeframe, the amount would be recovered by the Collector as arrears of land revenue. This decision reaffirms that while the doors of justice are open to all, they are not to be used as tools for harassment and private retaliation.