Indore News: High Court Dismisses PIL Driven By Personal Vendetta, Slaps Petitioner With ₹1 Lakh Cost

Indore (Madhya Pradesh): The Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by one Sachin Sisodiya, holding that the petition was motivated by personal vendetta rather than any genuine public cause.

The court imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner for misusing the PIL jurisdiction to target a police constable in Khargone.

A division bench comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a plea demanding registration of an FIR against constable Rahul Chouhan based on alleged incidents in August this year. The plea sought a direction to the reserve inspector (RI), Khargone, to initiate action.

State’s counsel raised strong objections, pointing out that similar petitions had already been filed and later voluntarily withdrawn. One such PIL had been filed by a person named Arun – represented by one of the same lawyers involved in this case - and was dismissed as withdrawn on September 4.

Furthermore, constable Chouhan had approached the High Court in a separate writ petition, but later compromised the matter and withdrew the case in October after his statement was verified by the court’s principal registrar.

Because the person directly concerned had already resolved the issue, the State said the new PIL was merely a tool of harassment.

Facebook posts used as evidence of intent

The State also placed on record several abusive social media posts aimed at the cop, including threats and derogatory remarks. The court reproduced these screenshots in its order, noting that such content demonstrated a clear malicious motive against the officer.

Not public interest, but personal vendetta: High Court

Calling the petition a “glaring example of abuse of PIL”, the HC said that PILs must not be used for expanding personal battles or blackmailing individuals.

The HC relied on key Supreme Court rulings, including State of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) and Gurpal Singh vs State of Punjab (2005), which caution courts to filter out PILs filed with oblique motives.

Penalty recovery as land revenue if defaulted

The HC ordered that the Rs 1 lakh cost be deposited with the High Court Legal Aid Services Authority, Indore, within one month. The amount is earmarked for upgrading the High Court Dispensary.

Should the petitioner fail to pay within the stipulated time, the amount will be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the district collector. A compliance report must be filed thereafter.

The write petition now stands dismissed.