'Shield Of Press Freedom Not Weapon For Extracting Unlawful Gain': MP High Court In Journalist's Plea To Quash FIR For Alleged Extortion
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has partly allowed the petition of a Journalist accused of cheating and extortion, observing that the defence of freedom of the press cannot be used to extract unlawful gain from people. The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed; "A journalist acts as a watchdog of society and performs the vital function of disseminating information concerning matters of...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has partly allowed the petition of a Journalist accused of cheating and extortion, observing that the defence of freedom of the press cannot be used to extract unlawful gain from people.
The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed;
"A journalist acts as a watchdog of society and performs the vital function of disseminating information concerning matters of public interest. Reporting on issues relating to public land, statutory compliance, and governmental actions falls within the legitimate domain of journalistic inquiry. However, the shield of press freedom cannot be permitted to become a weapon for extracting unlawful gain".
A petition was filed by a journalist seeking quashment of the FIR for extortion (Section 384) and cheating (Section 420) of the Indian Penal Code.
The FIR was registered on August 5, 2023, based on a written complaint filed by Koklal Yadav, who claimed to be the District President of Yadav Community. The complainant alleged that on July 18, 2023, the petitioner approached him and 4 others, including Bharat Yadav, Badri Yadav, Ramswaroop Yadav, and Rajesh Yadav, at Yadav Lounge in Gwalior. The petitioner introduced himself as a Journalist and informed them that the construction adjacent to the Revenue Inspector's Office was reportedly illegal.
Per the FIR, the petitioner asserted that the construction was being carried out on Gauthan (Village common land) without the necessary land-use conversion and without obtaining the requisite permissions under the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA Act).
The petitioner then allegedly demanded Rs 10,000 from the complainant, alleging that he would publish adverse news regarding the construction and involvement of the complainant and other persons if the demand were not met. The complainant, however, refused to pay.
Subsequently, the petitioner published a news article in “Pradesh Today” containing photographs of certain office bearers of the Gondwana Ganatantra Party and alleging irregularities in the construction of the memorial.
Based on the aforesaid allegation, the complainant lodged a written complaint, which culminated in the said FIR.
The court reiterated the ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC, including 1. Deception of any person; 2. Fraudulent or dishonest inducement; 3. Delivery of property pursuant to such inducement; and 4. Dishonest intention exists at the inception of the transaction.
The court noted that in the present case, the main aspect of cheating is deception, which is missing from the set of facts. Therefore, the case does not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC.
The court noted that the ingredients of Extortion (Section 384 IPC) were prima facie satisfied.
Before concluding the matter, the bench emphasized that journalism is one of the foundational pillars of democracy and is meant to report on issues relating to public land, statutory compliance, and governmental actions.
The journalist cannot be permitted to use the press freedom to extract unlawful gains, as allowing such conduct would erode the public trust in the institution of the media.
The bench held, "If a journalist, instead of reporting facts in public interest, seeks to leverage publication for personal enrichment by demanding illegal gratification, such conduct would erode public trust in the institution of media and cannot claim protection under the garb of professional duty. Courts must guard against criminal proceedings being used to silence honest reporting; at the same time, the cloak of journalism cannot shield acts that prima facie constitute extortion".
The court thus partly allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings related to Section 420 while sustaining the proceedings related to Section 384 of the IPC.
Case Title: Lakhan Singh Solanki v State of Madhya Pradesh [MCRC-43258-2024]
For Petitioner: Advocate Yogesh Soni
For State: Government Advocate Ajeet Rawat