Back
MP High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Journalist For Allegedly Extorting Money From Doctor
The has dismissed a filed by journalist Shashikant Jatav seeking to quash an FIR registered against him for alleged extortion and intimidation of a doctor operating an unregistered clinic. The ruling underscores that mere allegations of or retaliatory motives will not justify halting a legitimate investigation when the complaint discloses cognizable offences.
The Clash Between Reporting and Alleged Extortion
Shashikant Jatav, who also writes under aliases including Shashikant Goyal and Shashi Kapoor, approached the High Court under after FIR No. 214 of 2025 was lodged at Police Station City Kotwali, District Bhind. The FIR invoked following a complaint by Dr. Harmendra Singh Kushwaha.
According to the typewritten complaint, Jatav and another journalist visited the doctor’s “Bhoomi Clinic” on and demanded ₹5,000 monthly in exchange for not publishing exposés about the doctor practising allopathy without proper registration despite holding a BAMS degree. The complainant alleged that a threatening WhatsApp message and a subsequent news report in the Bejod Ratna newspaper followed his refusal.
The journalist, however, portrayed the FIR as part of a broader campaign of harassment. He claimed that his recent exposés on illegal sand mining in the Chambal River had angered local police, leading to his alleged assault and multiple retaliatory cases.
Petitioner’s Story of Police Vendetta Versus State’s Counter-Narrative
Jatav’s counsel detailed a sequence of alleged police misconduct: an invitation to tea at the SP’s office that turned into a strip-search and beating, followed by abduction attempts under the guise of transport to Delhi, and coerced video statements meant to undermine credibility. Reports were sent to the and the , and the petitioner even sought intervention.
The State countered that Jatav had misused his press credentials to blackmail medical practitioners. Multiple complaints had prompted the Superintendent of Police to issue a public notice on social media. Medical examination records from Bhind showed no external injuries, contradicting the petitioner’s “history of trauma” claim from Bhopal. The authorities insisted the present FIR stemmed from a specific third-party complaint unrelated to any larger journalistic dispute.
Why the Court Declined to Interfere at the Threshold
Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta observed that the allegations in the FIR made out the ingredients of the relevant penal provisions. The judge clarified that disputed questions—whether the WhatsApp message constituted journalism or extortion—must be examined during investigation and trial, not in writ proceedings.
“It is a settled principle of law that if an information discloses the commission of a , the existence of a personal grudge or of the complainant/police is not a sufficient ground to stifle a legitimate investigation at its threshold.”
The Court further held that the case did not fall into the “” category outlined in , where allegations are so absurd that no prudent person would proceed. Parallel inquiries by the NHRC remain available to address the journalist’s separate grievances against the police.
Final Order and Its Wider Implications
The High Court dismissed the petition for quashing the FIR while clarifying that its observations would not prejudice the ongoing investigation or trial. Jatav retains the liberty to raise all factual defences before the trial court.
The decision reinforces the principle that media professionals enjoy no automatic immunity from investigation when specific complaints of extortion surface, even amid allegations of police overreach. It also signals that courts will continue to demand “” when petitioners approach multiple forums with selective disclosures.
As the investigation proceeds, the competing narratives—journalistic courage versus alleged professional misconduct—will ultimately be tested before the trial court rather than through the extraordinary writ route.
