Back
2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1261
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Ranjeet Kumar Lal – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (Cr.) No. 192 of 2022
Decided on : 12-07-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Surabhi, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Devesh Krishna, Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the protection of public officials under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and the need for judicial application of mind in passing orders under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
RTI Activist - Right to Information Act - Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - [Section 2(f), (i), (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, Section 197 of Cr.P.C., Article 226 of the Constitution of India] - The court quashed the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR, emphasizing the protection of public officials under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and the need for judicial application of mind in passing orders under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It also highlighted the availability of civil remedies under the RTI Act.
Fact of the Case:
The complaint was filed for non-providing of CCTV footage in response to RTI applications. The petitioners, public officials, argued that the FIR was bad in law as it pertained to a civil dispute and they were protected under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR was based on a civil wrong and there was non-application of judicial mind in passing the order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It also emphasized the availability of civil remedies under the RTI Act.
Issues: Non-providing of CCTV footage, application of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., protection of public officials under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for judicial application of mind in passing orders under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and highlighted the availability of civil remedies under the RTI Act.
Final Decision: The criminal proceedings arising from the FIR were quashed, and it was made clear that civil remedies under the RTI Act could be pursued separately.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Ms. Surabhi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the FIR being Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No.66/2022, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh.
3. Opposite party no.2 has filed complaint case being Complaint Case No.2734 of 2021 alleging therein that the informant is a RTI Activist. In order to get some crucial CCTV footages in compact disc of the office of District Sub-Registrar, Hazaribagh dated 28.06.2021 and 30.06.2021, he filed two different applications on 29.06.2021 and 02.07.2021 respectively. Both the said applications were received by the Public Information Officer cum District Sub-Registrar and they were replied on 23.07.2021 whereby the information sought by the informant was denied by saying that the information sought for, does not come under the purview of Right to Information Act, 2005. The informant being aggrieved by the denial of providing the CCTV footage, preferred a First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority i.e., the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh on 24.08.2021.
Thereafter, the First Appellate Authority served two Notices to the Public Information Officer vide Case No. 36/2021 and 37/2021 on 06.09.2021 directing him to give the information that has been sought for within 3 days of receiving of the Notices. The Public Information Officer sent replies vide letter no. 974 and 975 to the informant by repeating the words of denial giving reason that storage of CCTV footage does not happen, hence it does not come under the purview of Section 2(f), (i), (j) of the RTI Act. The informant seeing the reluctance and being fully aware of his fundamental rights, wrote a Notice to the Public Information Officer cum District Sub-Registrar Hazaribagh on 23.09.2021 to provide him CCTV footage within 15 days and warn him of legal proceedings. The Public Information Officer cum District Sub-Registrar Hazaribagh did not reply to the said Notice. Thereafter, the informant wrote an objection letter dated 27.09.2021. It was further alleged in the complaint that the time period of which CCTV footage is asked, Mr. Vaibhavmani Tripathi, the then Public Information Officer cum District Sub-Registrar, Hazaribagh and he was transferred as District Sub-Registrar, Koderma on 24.06.2021 but he handed over his responsibilities on 01.07.2021. Being deprived of having access to the CCTV footage and due to the deliberate, intentional and dishonest mode of conduct of the PIO cum District Sub-Registrar, Hazaribagh, the opposite party no. 2 filed an online F.I.R against the accused persons on 30.10.2021. The informant further wrote a letter to S.P Hazaribagh dated 16.11.2021 with a view to initiate legal proceedings against Vaibhavmani Tripathi and Rupesh Kumar Sinha. However, no action was taken by the SP also. It was also alleged that the Additional Collector who is the first appellate authority does not know how to get his orders executed and the informant after exhausting all the legal tools against the respondents, preferred the Complaint Case No.2734/2021.
4. Ms. Surabhi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the said complaint, the learned court by way of endorsement at page 1, referred the matter to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of the FIR. She submits that pursuant to that the concerned police station has registered the FIR. She submits that in passing the said order, there is non-application of judicial mind by the learned court and in the mechanical way, the said order has been passed. She further submits that petitioner no.1 was posted as Additional Collector, Hazaribagh and he was working as First Appellate Authority under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act and petitioner no.2 subsequently took charge from petitioner no.1 and that is why petitioner no.2 has also been imp
