The Allahabad High Court had emphasized the necessity for the State to revoke licenses of journalists engaging in anti-social behaviors, such as blackmailing under the guise of journalism.

"The matter is very serious and the State Machinery should take cognizance of the same and cancel the licence of such Journalists, if they are found operating in such type of antisocial activities in the garb of their licence. There are machinery with the State Government which is capable to stop such type of activities which is being operated in case, if the case is found to be true," the Bench said.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed made the observation while declining to quash criminal proceedings against a journalist and a newspaper distributor, who were implicated in a case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Court's decision stemmed from allegations of a syndicate operating in Uttar Pradesh purportedly extorting individuals by threatening to publish damaging articles about them in newspapers, thereby tarnishing their reputation in society.

During the proceedings, the Defense Counsel contended that the accused had been wrongly accused and that the charge sheet was filed without due investigation. The Counsel argued that the accused had merely published an article exposing illegal tree cutting and that the allegations under the SC/ST Act were baseless. He further submitted that a mere perusal of the first Information report and statements of the witness shows that no case under Sections 384, 352, 504 and 505 of the IPC and Sections 3 (2) 5a & 3(1) (S) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Beniganj, District Hardoi, is made out against the applicants.

However, the State argued that there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case and highlighted the journalist's failure to produce a valid license issued by the Information Department before the Court.

The Court noted, "In the present case, the applicant, who claims to be the Journalist in the newspaper, namely, Swatantra Bharat is not able to show any document that he is recognized by the said newspaper and even after query made by this court the applicants and their counsel fails to show any such paper."

After considering the arguments, the Court declined to intervene in the matter, citing the existence of a prima facie cognizable offense. "Thus, no interference is required by this court exercising power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the aforesaid proceedings," the Court said.

"The learned counsel also fails to demonstrate the three ingredients by which the court can exercise the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the further proceeding of the case if prima facie the case is without jurisdiction or it is filed with abuse of the process of law. In the present case, the two is absent," the Court added.

Consequently, the Court ordered, "..thus, this court do not find any justification to entertain the present case and the present application lacks merits and is hereby dismissed."

Cause Title: Puneet Mishra Alias Puneet Kumar Mishra And Another v. State Of U.P. & Another [Neutral Citation No: 2024:AHC-LKO:38770]

Appearance:-

Applicant: Advocates Rajat Pratap Singh, Prashant Singh Chauhan

Opposite Party: Advocate Dr. V.K. Singh (GA), Additional Advocate General (AAG) Vinod Kumar Shahi

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Shamim AhmedAllahabad High Court

Sukriti Mishra