Criminal complaints for non-supply of RTI information barred by Section 23 RTI Act; exclusive remedy via appeals. Inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS not invocable post-revision absent grave miscarriage of justice.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 23 - Bar of jurisdiction of courts - No court shall entertain any suit, application, or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act, and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act - Complaint alleging offences for non-supply of information sought under RTI Act is barred; exclusive remedy is appeal under RTI Act - Applies to criminal proceedings as response to RTI request constitutes order under Act. (Paras 15-19)

(B) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 (corresponding to CrPC Section 482) - Inherent powers - Post dismissal of revision under Section 397(3) CrPC, High Court can intervene only if grave miscarriage of justice, abuse of process, or non-compliance with mandatory provisions - Not to be used as substitute for second revision or re-agitation of merits. (Paras 9-14)

(C) Indian Penal Code - Sections 166A, 420, 406, 120B - No necessity to examine ingredients where complaint barred by RTI Act Section 23 - Public servants entitled to protection under CrPC Section 197. (Paras 4-5, 22)

Facts of the case:
Complainant filed criminal complaint alleging public servants committed offences by failing to supply information sought under RTI Act despite fee payment, claiming violation of official duties, cheating, criminal breach of trust, and conspiracy. Trial Court dismissed complaint for failure to prove ingredients and absence of prosecution sanction. Revisional Court dismissed revision holding complaint barred by RTI Act Section 23 as no second appeal filed under RTI Act. Petitioner invoked inherent powers seeking to set aside orders, direct FIR registration, and compensation.

Findings of Court:
Complaint not maintainable due to bar under RTI Act Section 23; no grave miscarriage of justice warranting interference under inherent powers.

Issues: Whether criminal complaint maintainable for non-supply of RTI information; scope of High Court inherent powers post revision dismissal; applicability of prosecution sanction.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 23 RTI Act bars criminal courts from entertaining proceedings challenging RTI responses/orders; remedy confined to statutory appeals. Inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS exercisable sparingly post-revision only to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice, not here where statutory bar clear.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. rti denial prompted criminal complaint dismissed by lower courts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. petitioner alleges ipc offences in rti non-provision. (Para 6 , 7)
3. inherent powers under section 482 exercisable sparingly post-revision. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. section 23 rti bars criminal proceedings on rti orders. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. consumer complaints barred by rti section 23. (Para 20 , 21)
6. no miscarriage of justice; petition dismissed. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)

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 27th May 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 had applied for information under the Right to Information Act on 26th October 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. 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 prosecutoin 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 do 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