Allahabad High Court Rejects News18 Journalist’s Plea Over Alleged Shooting Incident Found False
Petitioner by his counsel reiterated his submission before the Court that he had filed the complaint but police gave a frivolous reply.
To this, the police informed the Court that the complaint was filed by the journalist with a motive to get security for himself.
In his petition, Srivastava claimed that he was travelling back from covering a story related to flood in Prayagraj’s Jhusi area when four unidentified men on two bikes fired at his car near Rahimapur.
High Court Disposes of Petition Seeking Registration of FIR
The Allahabad High Court recently disposed of a petition filed by a reporter of News18 news channel seeking registration of FIR for attempt to murder against unidentified persons.
The attempt was allegedly made by some persons associated with gangster-turned-Politician Atiq Ahmad, who was shot dead by the police in Prayagraj last year.
A Bench of Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Tarun Saxena noted the reply filed by the police which stated that the allegations made by the petitioner Amit Kumar Srivastava were completely false and were made with malafide intention to get security for himself.
"Taking into consideration the contents and averments made in the writ petition as well as the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is evident that the parties are at variance on the question as to whether the alleged incident had actually taken place or not. Even otherwise, the factual position as claimed by the petitioner is bitterly contested by the respondents ", the Court said in an order.
Court Reiterates the Remedy Before the Magistrate
The Court reiterates the legal position that where a person’s complaint is not accepted by the police for registration of FIR, he can approach the magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC or section 175(3) BNSS and request him to direct registration of FIR.
“The Magistrate can either direct registration of FIR, if the same is not registered. Or, if already registered, he can direct the police authorities to conduct a proper investigation. This would also include power of the Magistrate to change the investigating officer to ensure that proper investigation is conducted,” the Court added.
However, Srivastava did not avail this remedy and directly approached the High Court.
“The impugned petition is not maintainable. We do not find any reason to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus, as prayed in the instant writ petition. Therefore, the present writ petition is dismissed”, the Court ruled.
Petitioner’s Allegations and the State’s Response
The petitioner in his plea alleged that persons associated with Atiq Ahmad’s network were upset over his reportage and hence they conspired against him. He identified eight accused in his complaint.
After he reported the matter to the police, they refused to register an FIR. At this, he approached the High Court with a plea to register FIR against accused.
The State, through its counsel, opposed the plea and submitted that police conducted an inquiry and found that allegations made by Srivastava were false and fabricated.
The CCTV footage of the nearby petrol pump also contradicted Srivastava’s claims and forensics conducted on the bullet marks on his vehicle revealed that there was no shooting at his car as claimed.
The police alleged that the complainant has concocted the entire incident with a motive to obtain security cover from police.
“The motive behind filing of the said complaint was to seek security from Police for the petitioner himself. At the relevant time, when news reports concerning the murder of Atiq Ahmad were being covered, there were several press agencies, electronic meda journalists, news channels and reporters visiting/façalling/visiting District Prayagraj for covering the news. In the pretext of covering the news relating to the murder of Atiq Ahmad, the petitioner sought to project himself as the single prompt news reporter and intended to obtain police security for himself,” stated counsel appearing for State.
The State also submitted that Srivastava has the habit of filing complaints against those persons with whom he has enmity or rivalry.
Court Refuses to Direct Registration of FIR
Accepting arguments raised by the State, the Court refused to direct registration of FIR saying that the very facts in the case are disputed.
“In the circumstance of the case, we do not find it proper to issue any direction for registration of FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner also did not point out any ground which shows that the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the last resort,” the Court ruled while dismissing the plea.
High Court Expresses Concern Over Direct Article 226 Petitions
The Court, in the order passed on August 12, raised concerns over the increasing trend of litigants approaching the High Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking registration of FIR without availing the remedy under BNSS.
“The purpose of providing remedy under BNSS/ CrPC would be defeated if the citizens approach the High Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for getting the FIR registered. The High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be used as a first resort rather than as the last resort,” the Bench observed.
Senior Advocates Deepak Kumar Pandey and Vinay Kumar Mishra appeared for the petitioner.
Advocate SK Ojha appeared for the State. Advocate Rajesh Chandra Dwivedi appeared for other respondents.
