Criminal complaints over non-provision of information under RTI Act barred by Section 23 except via statutory appeals; high court inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS exercised sparingly post-revision only for grave miscarriage of justice.

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for quashing and setting aside orders dated 27thMay 2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Forests), Shimla (learned Revisional Court), and 5th February 2024, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1 (ACJM-1), Shimla. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 166A, 420, 406 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that he applied for information under the Right to Information Act on 23rd August 2021 on the official email ID of accused No. 2. However, the accused failed to supply the information to the complainant despite the payment of the fee, and they violated their official duties and cheated him. They provided illegal protection to the persons involved in the illegal act. Hence, it was prayed that an appropriate action be taken against them.

3. The complainant led the preliminary evidence.

4. The learned Trial Court held that the complainant had failed to prove the ingredients of the commission of the offences alleged by him. The accused did not disobey any direction of law which prohibited them from requiring the presence of any person for investigation. In fact, they were not conducting any investigation. The ingredients of section 166A of the IPC were not attracted. It was not established that the accused made any inducement to the complainant or committed any breach of trust. The accused are the officers of the State Government and are entitled to the protection of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The complainant did not obtain any prosecution sanction. Hence, the complaint was dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant filed a revision, which was decided by the learned Sessions Judge (Forests) (learned Revisional Court). The learned Revisional Court held that the complainant had applied for certain information under the RTI Act, which was not supplied by the accused No. 1 within 30 days. The complainant failed to file a second appeal under Section 19 (3) of the RTI Act. The cognisance of any issue arising out of the order made under the RTI Act is barred under Section 23 of the RTI Act. Section 166A comes into play when a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of law, which prohibits him from requiring the attendance of any person for investigation into an offence or any matter or knowingly disobeys to the prejudice of any person, any direction of law regulating the manner in which he is to conduct the investigation. The accused sought the information under the RTI Act; therefore, provisions of Section 166A did not apply to the present case. The complainant was not induced to deliver any property to any person. The property was not handed over to the accused in trust. There was no evidence of any criminal conspiracy. The accused were entitled to the benefit of section 197 of the CrPC. Learned Trial Court had not committed any error. Therefore, the revision was dismissed.

6. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Courts below, the complainant has filed the present petition asserting that the lear