Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 864 (JHR)

Ranjeet Kumar Lal v. State of Jharkhand

2023-07-12

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
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. 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 implicated in the said complaint case. She further submits that the allegation in the entire complaint is of non-providing of CCTV footage on the RTI application by respondent no.2. She took the Court to relevant portion of the complaint and submits that at best, it can be a case of civil nature, if any dispute is there and for that criminality is not involved in the present case. She took the Court to relevant portion of the complaint and submits that at best, it can be a case of civil nature, if any dispute is there and for that criminality is not involved in the present case. She submits that the petitioners have discharged their official duty and while discharging official duty, they are protected under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. On these grounds, she submits that the FIR itself is bad in law. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent-State fairly submits that it appears that if any wrong is there i.e. civil in nature and for that criminal case has been filed and since there was direction of the Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and that is why, the FIR has been registered. 6. Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that CCTV footage was sought to be obtained through the RTI application and that was not provided and on that day, there was rampant corruption in the registry office of Hazaribagh and since the information was not provided, that is why criminality is made out. 7. Looking into the contents of the complaint case, it transpires that for non-supply of CCTV footage, the complaint case has been filed. Admittedly, petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were posted as Additional Collector in the district of Hazaribagh. The Right to Information Act provides remedy if any information is not provided to any of the applicant and remedies are provided therein and without availing remedy, the complainant has chosen to file the complaint case. It appears that in discharging of the official duty, the said order was passed and if the complainant is aggrieved with such order, remedy was there to challenge the same in higher forum. 8. Further, the petitioners were discharging official duty and they are protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and in absence of any sanction, the learned court has sent the matter for registration of the FIR. 9. Further, the Court finds that the order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., there is only endorsement of the learned court stating section and refer the matter to the police station, which suggests that there is non-application of judicial mind. 9. Further, the Court finds that the order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., there is only endorsement of the learned court stating section and refer the matter to the police station, which suggests that there is non-application of judicial mind. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. order is not required to be passed mechanically, however the learned court is required to apply its judicial mind for passing such order, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; [ (2015) 6 SCC 287 ] . 10. The Court further finds that for a civil wrong, criminal case has been filed. It is a fit case to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India considering the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others; [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]. 11. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, entire criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR being Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No.66/2022, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh is quashed. 12. It is made clear that if respondent no.2 take any civil remedy under the said Act, that will be decided on its own merit without prejudiced to this order. 13. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.