No Provision Under RTI Act To File Complaint Against Applicant Who Sought Information: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR lodged for cheating and forgery against an applicant seeking information under the Right To Information (RTI) Act, observing there is no provision under the RTI Act or Rules to file a complaint against an applicant, who sought information. The Court also found there was no evidence to prove the ingredients of the offence.

An FIR for forgery, cheating and criminal conspiracy was filed by a Computer Operator in the office of District Information Technology Society (DITS) , Hisar which is established under the RTI Act, alleging that one Bajrang had forged the signature of his relative, Sandeep Kumar who has Below Poverty Line Card in order to avoid paying the RTI application fees. 

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar quashed the FIR and said, "There is no provision under the RTI Act or Rules made thereunder to file a complaint against an applicant, who sought any information under the said Act. No loss of property or valuable security has been caused to the complainant, who is an official working under the DITS, Bhiwani and therefore, he had no locus standi to lodge prosecution against the petitioners."

The Court noted that the FIR ought to have been filed by Sandeep Kumar, whose signatures are alleged to have been forged by Bajrang, rather said Sandeep Kumar is seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground that he only sought the information by filing an application under the RTI Act and RTI office officials obtained his signatures on blank papers and one affidavit, which were used by them against the petitioners.

The Court was hearing three petitions filed for quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC lodged against one Bajrang, Sandeep Kumar and Madan Lal for cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC.

According to the FIR, one Bajrang has forged the signature of his relative, Sandeep Kumar in an RTI application, who has a Below Poverty Line Card in order to avoid paying application fees. A Computer Operator in the office of DITS requested that appropriate legal action be taken against the accused as the RTI application was filed with a mala fide intention.

The Senior Advocate for the petitioners argued that Sandeep Kumar himself filed the RTI application in 2017, seeking information regarding the DITS office. The assertions made in the FIR are completely false. Kumar was called into the office, where the office staff of the DITS misbehaved with him and snatched his mobile phone. They further coerced him to sign an affidavit stating that he had not filed the application but was filed by the Bajrang, he added.

On the other hand, the State counsel submitted that the forged RTI application had been made with an intention to cause a loss to the State Exchequer and to defraud the functionaries of the State. 

He further stated that Madan Lal Jain is an aide of Bajrang and a bare perusal of the signatures on the application and on the affidavit submitted by Kumar, reveal that there is a variation of signatures.

After hearing the submissions from both sides and examining the material on record, the Court noted that the essential ingredients for the commission of the offence of cheating are deception and inducement to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property.

"There must be an intention to induce a person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and the act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. Further, to attract ingredients of forgery, there must be making of a false document or false electronic record with an intention to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person," observed the Court.

Perusing the records the Court noted that, "There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner(s) have deceived any person fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. Therefore, a bare reading of the averments and allegations in the FIR would show that no case for offence under Section 420 IPC is made out. Making a false document as defined under Sections 463 and 464 IPC would show that there must be making of a false document with an intention to cause damage or injury to the public or any person."

Justice Brar opined that making of the false document is sine qua non for launching prosecution under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC. It was stated that a bare perusal of the allegation contained in the FIR shows that it is not a case where the petitioners dishonestly or fraudulently made a document with an intention of causing it to be believed that the document was made by some other person.

Court held that neither was it a case that petitioners had dishonestly or fraudulently altered a document in any material part thereof without lawful authority nor it was a case that the petitioners dishonestly or fraudulently caused any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person by reason of (i) unsoundness of mind; (ii) intoxication and (iii) deception practised upon him, would not understand the contents of the documents or the nature of the alteration. Thus, the ingredients of forgery are attracted, it held.

It found that there is no allegation that the petitioners have dishonestly or fraudulently altered the BPL certificate with an intention to cause damage or injury to the public or any person and that there is no delivery of any property or valuable security.

Moreover, the Court noted that the in an application submitted by Sandeep to SSP Bhiwani, he averred that  RTI application was filed by him and the complainant in FIR and other officials of DITS threatened him to implicate in a false case and got his statement recorded under coercion and also forced him to purchase an affidavit.

Adding that there is no provision under the RTI Act or Rules made thereunder to file a complaint against an applicant, who sought any information under the said Act, the Court set aside the FIR.

Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Sukhcharan Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioners.

Garima Sharma, Advocate for the private respondents.

Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana.

Title: Bajrang v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 106

Click here to read/download the order