Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a criminal writ petition filed by three employees of the District Court, Nagpur—a retired Nazir, an Assistant Superintendent, and a Senior Clerk—seeking quashing of FIR No. 71/2019 registered against them under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005. The FIR was lodged pursuant to an order of the State Information Commissioner, Nagpur Division, who directed the Registrar cum Public Information Officer to trace records relating to deposit of balance consideration in execution of specific performance decrees and, if not found, to file an FIR. The background involved Special Civil Suits No. 670/2003, 671/2003, and 672/2003 filed by respondents No. 6 to 8 (decree holders) for specific performance. Those suits were decreed on 30/01/2008 with a condition that balance consideration be deposited within two months. On 10/04/2008, the decree holders approached the trial court with demand drafts and an application for extension of time; the Presiding Officer allegedly permitted deposit and directed Nazir to accept payment. Misc. Judicial Applications No. 179/2008, 180/2008, and 181/2008 were filed on 16/04/2008 seeking extension of ten days, and were allowed on 28/01/2009, recording that balance consideration had already been deposited on 10/04/2008. That order attained finality, and the decrees were confirmed up to the Supreme Court. Respondent No. 4, as legal representative of the judgment debtor, later filed applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information about the permission and order for deposit. The First Appellate Authority remanded the matter to the Registrar cum Public Information Officer, who reported that the relevant application and order could not be found. Respondent No. 4 then filed Appeal No. 2485/2018 before the State Information Commission, which on 04/10/2018 directed tracing of the record and, if not available, submission of an affidavit and lodging of an FIR. Consequently, FIR No. 71/2019 dated 22/02/2019 was registered against the petitioners under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005. The petitioners challenged the FIR in the High Court. The High Court on 07/06/2019 issued notice and directed no coercive steps; on 22/02/2021 it issued Rule and directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur to submit a report. The report dated 03/03/2021 stated that balance consideration was accepted by the Nazir without order of the Court. Respondents No. 6 to 8 filed an intervention application which was allowed on 17/08/2021. The petitioners argued that the applications and orders were not kept in the Nazir Section but returned to the concerned court, that they had no duty to maintain those records, that the State Information Commissioner lacked power to direct lodging of an FIR under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and that the FIR disclosed no specific role or mens rea. The judgment debtor's attempt was characterized as an abuse of process to frustrate execution of a decree confirmed up to the Supreme Court. The court held that the State Information Commissioner had no authority to direct filing of an FIR, that Section 9 of the Maharashtra Public Records Act requires mens rea and a specific duty to maintain records which was absent, and that the FIR and proceedings were liable to be quashed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Mens Rea - Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005, Section 9 - FIR under Section 9 requires intentional destruction, damage, or loss of public records with a culpable mental state - No specific role or duty attributed to petitioners to maintain the missing records, and absence of mens rea negates offence - Held that no case under Section 9 is made out against the court staff (Paras 10-12). B) Right to Information - Powers of State Information Commissioner - Section 20, Right to Information Act, 2005 - Second Appellate Authority can only impose penalty or recommend disciplinary action, not direct lodging of FIR - The Commissioner's direction to file FIR if records not traced is without statutory basis - Held that the order directing FIR is invalid (Para 10). C) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Section 148 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Extension of time to deposit balance consideration was already adjudicated and attained finality - Judgment debtor's attempt to question records through RTI and FIR is an abuse of process to frustrate execution of a decree confirmed up to the Supreme Court - Held that courts must prevent abuse of process by judgment debtors (Paras 1-4). D) Service Law - Responsibility for Court Records - Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005 - Nazir and clerks not responsible for records returned to concerned court; duty of record maintenance lies elsewhere - Petitioners could not be held liable for absence of records that were not in their custody - Held that no duty to maintain the sought records devolved on petitioners (Paras 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005 against court staff for missing records is valid; whether the State Information Commissioner had jurisdiction to direct lodging of FIR; whether the petitioners had duty to maintain the missing records; whether the registration of FIR is an abuse of process to frustrate execution of a decree confirmed up to the Supreme Court
Final Decision
The High Court quashed FIR No. 71/2019 and the proceedings against the petitioners, holding that the State Information Commissioner had no power to direct lodging of FIR and that no offence under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005 was made out due to absence of mens rea and lack of duty on the petitioners.
Law Points
- Mens rea is essential for offence under Section 9 of Maharashtra Public Records Act
- 2005
- State Information Commissioner under Right to Information Act
- 2005 has no power to direct lodging of FIR
- Section 20 of Right to Information Act
- 2005 only permits imposition of fine or disciplinary enquiry
- court staff not responsible for records returned to concerned court
- abuse of process by judgment debtor to frustrate execution of decree
