Dinesh Kumar v. The Chief Secretary And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1997 of 2014 Dinesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Sachidananad Menon Aged About 49 Years, Working As Journalist Since Last Fifteen Years and residence at E-243, Housing Board Colony, Malviya Nagar, Durg, Distt Durg, CG ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. The Chief Secretary, Chhattisgarh Government, Secretariat, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, CG

2. The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarters, Raipur, Dist Raipur, CG

3. The Superintendent Of Police Durg, Dist Durg, CG

4. CSP Chaoni, Durg, Dist Durg, CG

5. The Collector Durg, Distt Durg, CG

6. Mr. D.K.Mehta Senior Vice President Project, J.K.Lakshmi Cement Limited, Malpurikhurd, Durg, Dist Durg, CG ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Dinesh Kumar, petitioner in person For Respondent/State :

Shri R.K. Gupta, Dy.A.G.

Order On Board 23/09/2015 Heard.

1. The petitioner, a working Journalist, filed this petition at a point of time when he was apprehending threat to life and liberty due to fearless journalism.

2. The petitioner, who appears in person, submits that he has been highlighting public issues through news reports published in the newspaper. It is the case of the petitioner that it was because of this news report published by him that the criminal elements started harassing him and extending threat to life and liberty. According to the petitioner, when this matter was brought to the notice of local administration and police authority, the petitioner found that proper steps were not taken to protect him and hold inquiry on the allegation made by him. In these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court to seek protection.

3. Learned counsel for the State referring to the averments made in the reply and

various inquiry made, submitted that though there are certain allegations against the police acting hand in glove with the law breakers, but it was the Director General of Police who had ordered an inquiry to be made in the matter and later on, the complaints made by the petitioner were duly inquired into. The allegation of threat administered to the petitioner in the office was also inquired into. Despite all efforts, the unidentified persons have not been arrested. It is next contended by learned Deputy Advocate General that the administration and police shall always make all efforts to protect life and liberty of every individual including the petitioner. He submits that in case the petitioner has any allegation in future, he may approach senior police officer of the district and on such approach made, the complaint made by the petitioner shall be duly inquired into.

4. In the changed circumstances, since the time the petition was filed before this Court, at present, considering the nature of relief sought in this petition, I am inclined to dispose off the petition observing that the petitioner, like any other citizen, is entitled to protection of his life and liberty. More so, the petitioner being a Journalist, he is entitled to proper protection against any criminal act preventing him from discharging his duty as Journalist. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that there are certain criminal cases pending against the petitioner on the allegation of defamation. This Court would restrain from making any comments on the merits of the pending criminal case against the petitioner. However, the petitioner is entitled to protection of his life and liberty.

5. This Court expects that no person would be allowed to take the law in his own hands.

6. The petition is accordingly disposed off.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen