MP High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Journalist Accused Of Extorting Money By Threatening 'Fake News' Reports
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash an FIR lodged against a journalist accused of extorting money by allegedly threatening the Umri Toll Plaza administration with publication of fake news reports.The bench of Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta observed that the FIR prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence and warrants a proper investigation."The allegations in FIR...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash an FIR lodged against a journalist accused of extorting money by allegedly threatening the Umri Toll Plaza administration with publication of fake news reports.
The bench of Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta observed that the FIR prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence and warrants a proper investigation.
"The allegations in FIR No. 123/2025 specifically describe an incident of extortion, the use of abusive language, and criminal intimidation. The Respondent/State has placed on record statements from the Complainant and eyewitnesses recorded under the relevant provisions of the BNSS, as well as the duty charts of the toll plaza employees, which prima facie support the prosecution's case".
An FIR was registered at the Police Station in Bhind from a complaint filed by Arun Yadav, the manager of the Umri Toll Plaza, alleging that on April 30, 2025, the journalist arrived at the toll plaza and demanded free passage for vehicles.
According to the complaint, the petitioner allegedly identified himself as a journalist and threatened to publish defamatory content on social media unless paid. It was further alleged that the ₹2,000 was extorted on the spot and later returned on May 1, 2025, demanding a monthly payment of ₹5,000, accompanied by abusive language and threats.
The FIR was registered for obscenity (Section 296), extortion (Section 308), and criminal intimidation (Section 351) of the BNS.
The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR, arguing that the allegations were false, politically motivated and part of a retaliatory campaign linked to his journalistic work exposing alleged wrongdoing in the region.
The petition argued that the FIR was lodged without a preliminary inquiry and shortly after he had received protection from the Supreme Court. The petitioner also alleged a pattern of harassment, including earlier incidents involving police officials, forced statements and intimidation.
The petition claimed that the case was intended to suppress journalistic freedom under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The counsel for the State argued that the petitioner misused his position as a journalist to intimidate and extort money from toll stadd and that the FIR was part of multiple complaints against individuals allegedly involved in similar activities.
The court held that if the allegations are taken at face value, they disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and therefore cannot be dismissed at the preliminary stage. The court observed that the disputed factual questions, such as whether the money was extorted or whether the complaint was delayed, must be examined by the trial court.
The court referred to the Special Information Notice issued by the IGP of Chambal Zone, highlighting alleged complaints of organised groups of YouTubers and WhatsApp-based news operators engaging in extortion and blackmail. The notice warned that such acts constitute serious offences punishable under law, including punishment up to life imprisonment and directed victims to report such incidents to the police.
The court, in view of this special information notice, held,
"In view of the above, as well as numerous complaints regarding unnecessary harassment by journalists, including the petitioner, the action must be taken to demonstrate that the complaints lodged by the police are not the result of revenge or personal grudges. Under these circumstances, no interference by this Court is warranted".
The court noted that the witness's statement and the investigation material prima facie supported the prosecution's case and therefore dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Amarkant Singh Chouhan v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-34586-2025
For Petitioner: Advocate Sameer Kumar Shrivastava
For State: Additional Advocate General Ankur Modi
For IPS: Senior Advocate M P S Raghuvanshi with Advocate Mohammad Amir Khan