Madras High Court
C.Kayalvizhi vs R.Sugumar on 23 February, 2022
Crl.R.C(MD)No.875 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 17.02.2022
Pronounced on : 23.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.875 of 2021
C.Kayalvizhi,
W/o.M.Sureshraj,
Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Tax),
Working as Assistant Commissioner/
Personal Assistant to
Joint Commissioner (Commercial Tax),
Trichy. ... Revision Petitioner/3rd Respondent
Vs.
1.R.Sugumar,
S/o.R.L.Rengachari,
55, West Rani Street,
Trichy – 620 008. .... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.M.Lakshmi,
W/o.Late.Muthiaya Nadar,
Nos.214, 215, Aruna Metals,
Big Bazaar Street,
Trichy – 620 008.
3.Saravanan Sattaiyappan,
Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Tax),
Commercial Tax Office Campus,
No.1, Brough Road, Erode – 638 001.
4.R.Shanmuganathan,
Additional Department Member,
STAT, City Civil Court Building,
High Court,
Chennai – 600 104. ... Respondents 2 to 4/
Respondents 1, 2 and 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
Crl.R.C(MD)No.875 of 2021
5.State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Fort Crime Police,
Tiruchirappalli. ... 5th Respondent
(R – 5 impleaded vide order, dated 23.02.2022
made in Crl.M.P(MD)No.11740 of 2021)
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the
records in Cr.M.P.No.4345 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Tiruchirappalli and set aside the same insofar as
against the petitioner/third respondent.
For Petitioner : Ms.Kanimozhi Mathi
For R – 1 : Mr.Ajmal Khan
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For R – 2 : Mr.S.Vinayak
For R – 3 : Mr.R.Aravindhan
For R – 5 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order
passed in Cr.M.P.No.4345 of 2021, dated 07.08.2021 on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruchirappalli, thereby
directed the fifth respondent to register the F.I.R as against A.1 to
A.3 and investigate the case and file final report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.875 of 2021
2. The petitioner is arraigned as A.3. The first respondent
lodged a complaint alleging that he and his brothers are the
landlords in shop Nos.213, 214 and 215, Big Bazaar Street,
Trichirappalli and they inherited shop No.213 through their father's
Will and acquired shop Nos.214 and 215 by way of purchase. The
first respondent and his brothers were entered into a rental
agreement in respect of shop in Door No.213, Big Bazaar Street,
Trichirappalli, with one Muthiah Nadar husband of the first
accused/second respondent for five years from 09.06.1994 to
08.06.1999. Thereafter, the first respondent/complainant and his
brothers were entered into another agreement with one Lakshmi,
wife of Muthiah Nadar in respect of shops in Door Nos.214 and 215
of ground floor for a period of five years from 23.10.1996 to
22.10.2001. She started the business in the name and style of
M/s.Aruna Metals occupying Door Nos.213, 214 and 215, since
1997. The first accused's husband sub-let the shop No.213 to his
wife, namely Lakshmi. In that regard, the first respondent filed
R.C.O.P before the Rent Controller/III Additional District Munsif,
Tiruchirappalli, relating to shop No.213 as R.C.O.P.No.219 of 2001
as against the first accused's husband and in relation to shop
Nos.214 and 215, he has filed another R.C.O.P.No.193 of 2001
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.875 of 2021
against the said Lakshmi-A.1 In order to ascertain the statement in
the counter-affidavit of Muthaiah Nadar that he has sub-let in
respect of shop No.213 to his wife Lakshmi, the son of the
complainant has filed an application under the Right to Information
Act on 12.07.2014 before the Commercial Tax Officer of the Gandhi
Market Circle regarding TIN No.33903380968 of M/s.Aruna Metals.
As per the information, dated 18.08.2014, it discloses that the
above Tin was issued to Lakshmi-A.1 for the shop in Door No.213
on 12.01.1997. He also filed another application under the Right to
Information Act on 02.01.2015, for which, by reply dated
22.01.2015, replied with regard to shop Nos.214 and 215 that since
the dealer objected to give documents to the Information Officer, as
the Rent Control Original Petition is pending and the same was
informed to the son of the first respondent that it could not be
given. As against the said reply, an appeal filed before the Tamil
Nadu Information Commission. The State Information Commission
directed the third respondent herein to furnish information.
Thereafter, the son of the defacto complainant was given reply,
dated 12.11.2015. Further alleged that by reply dated 07.12.2016,
one of the Right to Information Petition, dated 07.11.2016, was
denied on the ground that there was stay in W.P.No.37685 of 2015.
Thereafter, the second respondent filed appeal before the Tamil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.875 of 2021
Nadu Information Commission and it was ordered to furnish the
information. In order to comply with the order, dated 26.07.2018,
by reply dated 28.08.2018, the petitioner herein had furnished a
rental agreement dated 01.01.1997 for shop Nos.213, 214 and 215.
On receipt of the said agreement, dated 01.01.1997, the first
respondent alleged that the said agreement is a forged one and that
apart, from the rental agreement, dated 23.10.1996 executed
between the second respondent and the landlords, there was no
rental agreement executed separately by the first respondent in
favour of the first accused. Therefore, the first respondent lodged
complaint before the Inspector of Police and also the Commissioner
of Police, Trichirappalli. Since they did not take any action, the first
respondent filed a complaint seeking direction under Section 156(3)
of Cr.P.C.
3. By an order, dated 07.08.2021, the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Tiruchirappalli in Cr.M.P.No.4345 of 2021, directed
the fifth respondent to register the F.I.R as against A.1 to A.3 and
investigate the case and file the final report.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the learned Magistrate mechanically without application of mind
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.875 of 2021
directed the fifth respondent to register the F.I.R as against the
officials, who furnished information under the Right to Information
Act. The information furnished under the Right to Information Act
cannot be termed as offence, since the petitioner had only
discharged her official duty being a Government official and it
cannot be termed as crime punishable under the Indian Penal Code.
The officials are being dragged into the private litigation of the
second respondent as scapegoats which in turn leading to wastage
of working hours in performing their duty.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first
respondent submitted that right or wrong, the learned Magistrate
directed the fifth respondent to register a case against the
petitioner. When the petitioner is being an accused, she has no say
before registering the F.I.R and she has no locus to challenge the
order passed by the learned Magistrate. In support of his
contention, he relied upon the Judgment reported in 2014 (4) SCC
626 – Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat and
others, in which, the Honourable Supreme Court of India held that
it would not be necessary to give an opportunity of hearing to the
proposed accused as a matter of course. The Court cautioned that if
prior notice and an opportunity of hearing have to be given in every
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.875 of 2021
criminal case before taking any action against the accused person, it
would frustrate the entire objection of an effective investigation.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
fifth respondent submitted that as directed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Tiruchirappalli in Cr.M.P.No.4345 of 2021, dated
07.08.2021, the fifth respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime
No.1341 of 2021 on 15.11.2021 for the offences under Sections
465, 468, 747 and 420 of I.P.C as against the first accused alone,
namely, the second respondent herein. After registration of F.I.R,
the investigation is pending. The third respondent herein filed quash
petition in Crl.O.P(MD)No.18514 of 2021, in which, this Court
granted interim stay of further proceedings of the order in
Cr.M.P.No.4345 of 2021, dated 07.08.2021 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruchirappalli and it is pending.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent, the
learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, the learned
counsel appearing for the third respondent and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the fifth respondent and
perused the entire materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.875 of 2021
8. On a perusal of the records revealed that though the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruchirappalli, directed the fifth
respondent to register the case as against the respondents 2 and 3
and the petitioner herein, the fifth respondent registered the case
only as against the second respondent herein, since the third
respondent and the petitioner are Government officials, who
furnished details under the Right to Information Act. Whatever the
documents furnished by the second respondent herein, the same
was furnished to the first respondent's son. That apart, Section 23
of the Right to Information Act says that no Court shall entertain
any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order
made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question
otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act. It does not
appear to interdict proceedings before the civil Courts alone. The
bar against entertaining any suit, application or other proceeding in
respect of any order made under the Act, places a total embargo on
any judicial proceeding against any order made under the Act
except by way of an appeal as provided under Section 19 of the Act.
Thus, the information furnished by the Public Information Officer in
response to a request made to her under Section 7 of the Act can
be treated as an 'order'. Section 19 of the Act providing for appeals
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.875 of 2021
uses the expressions “decision” and “order” as forming the subject
matter of appeals. Those replies are immune to challenge either
before the civil Court or before the criminal Court except by way of
an appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act.
9. In view of the above, the prosecution against the officials,
who furnished the information under the Right to Information Act, is
misconceived. Therefore, the fifth respondent rightly registered the
F.I.R only as against the second respondent herein and the
investigation is pending. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is
disposed of.
23.02.2022
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes/No
ps
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall
be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.875 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Fort Crime Police,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.875 of 2021
23.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
