Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Prakash Gupta vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 28 July, 2021
Bench: Saroj Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 31 Reserved
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 2212 of 2021
Applicant :- Jitendra Prakash Gupta
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow & Ors.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Rastogi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) has been filed to set-aside the judgment dated 06.02.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Criminal Revision No. 173 of 2018, under Section 397, 399 of Cr.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Sadar and order dated 08.10.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri in Case No.3623 of 2015 (Jitendra Prakash Gupta Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others).
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are as under:-
i. The applicant moved an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to get registered the First Information Report. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate treated that application as complaint and followed the procedure prescribed for the complaint case. The complainant examined himself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and no witness was presented. After hearing the complainant the court rejected the complaint on merits vide order dated 08.10.2018. Against that order Revision No.173 of 2018 was filed. The revisional court dismissed the revision vide order dated 06.02.2021. Both the above orders are impugned orders in this petition.
3. Heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Rastogi, learned counesl for the applicant and Sri Vipul Gupta, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is an Right to Information (in short R.T.I.) activist. He applied for the information as per law, but that was not provided by the concerned authorities, rather they embezzled the money sent for the purpose i.e. Rs.45/- ( forty five). Both the learned court below have passed the order/judgment without applying legal mind, in a cursory manner. Both the courts below have not considered the fact that money was not returned back to the applicant.
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submitted that the order and judgment passed by both the courts below are perfectly legal and speaking orders. Valid reasons have been given by both the courts. Further more, no court has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute relating to Right to Information Act as provided in the Act itself.
6. Considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
7. The perusal of the record shows that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly rejected the complaint observing that complainant/petitioner have right to appeal under the provisions of Right to Information Act, if the information is not provided. The complainant/applicant did not file any appeal and proceeded to lodge an F.I.R.
8. Revisional court also has rightly concluded that the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is correct as provision is there for appeal. No such appeal was preferred by the petitioner.
9. In light of the above discussions, there is no irregularity or illegality in the order and judgment of both the courts below. Hence there is no need of any interference in the impugned order and judgment.
10. This petition is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 28.07.2021
A.K. Singh
(Saroj Yadav, J.)
