‘Administrative lethargy can’t defeat Art 21’: CGHC quashes case against woman journo

Raipur: The Chhattisgarh high court has quashed a criminal case and a 2018 FIR registered against a woman journalist. The court observed that continuing the criminal proceedings after an unexplained delay of over six years would cause serious prejudice to the accused and amount to unnecessary harassment.“The right to a speedy investigation and trial forms an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and cannot be defeated by administrative inaction or institutional lethargy,” a division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal said on Monday.The Bench passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Shriya Panday (Dubey). The court noted that the alleged incident took place on June 20, 2018, but the police filed the charge-sheet only on November 11, 2024.

The division bench added that the record did not disclose any satisfactory justification from the investigating agency for the extraordinary delay.The petitioner was working as a media reporter with a news channel in June 2018. She had visited the Mahila police station in Bilaspur on the night of June 20, 2018, to verify reports regarding the alleged detention of certain nurses and their spouses. The police subsequently registered an FIR against her under sections 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner’s counsel, Ujjwal Choubey, argued that she visited the police station solely for professional duties to gather facts on a matter of public importance. He submitted that the media team faced hostility from police officials. The counsel also highlighted that the petitioner later secured anticipatory bail, married, shifted to Raigarh, and has been leading a settled family life without any criminal antecedents.The state counsel, Shailendra Sharma, opposed the petition, stating that the trial court had already taken cognizance of the offences. He argued that the grounds raised by the petitioner involved disputed facts that required validation during a trial. The high court, however, found that the prosecution case relied primarily on statements from police personnel and interested witnesses without any independent corroboration.

The bench noted that the material collected did not establish any overt act by the journalist to support the alleged offences.The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, the 2019 charge-sheet, the cognizance order, and all consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioner.