High Court’s inherent powers under BNSS Section 528 exercisable sparingly post-revision bar to prevent miscarriage of justice; quasi-judicial proceedings before human rights commission protected under Judges (Protection) Act barring criminal complaints for official acts.

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 2ndMay 2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge CBI Courts, Shimla (learned Revisional Court), and 6th August 2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.5, Shimla (learned Trial Court). (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 12oB, 166A, 200, 201, 212, 217, 218, 219, 406, 409, 420, and 468-471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the complainant filed a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) against the principal of DAV Public School, Shimla-6, who filed a reply to the complaint, mentioning her wrong address. This fact was brought to the notice of the Commission, and a fine of Rs. 1000/- was imposed. The matter was disposed of on 28th August 2023. A false report was created to protect the Principal and her advocate. Hence, it was prayed that an appropriate action be taken against them.

3.The complainant filed his affidavit in support of the complaint.

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 were acting in discharge of their official duties. The complainant filed the complaint instead of filing an appeal against the order. 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 Additional Sessions Judge CBI Court Shimla (learned Revisional Court). The learned Revisional Court held that the complainant had filed a complaint before the Commission, which was opposed by filing a reply mentioning the wrong address and designation. The Commission permitted the rectification of the wrong address, subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 1000. The order of rectification did not amount to the commission of any offence regarding which the investigation could be ordered. It is impermissible to challenge the order passed by the Commission in collateral proceedings. Jurisdiction vested with the learned Trial Court under Section 175 (3) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is discretionary and can be exercised only when the allegations disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. No cognizable offence was disclosed, and the learned Trial Court was justified in dismissing the complaint. 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 learned Courts below protected the Principal and her advocate, who had admitted the filing of a false affidavit. The complaint disclosed the commission of cognizable offences, and the learned Trial Court was bound to send it to the police for investigation. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed, orders passed by the learned Courts below be set aside, FIR be ordered to be registered, and compensation of Rs.