You are facing a situation that, on the facts stated by you, clearly bears the characteristics of a retaliatory and malicious criminal action, triggered after you informed the police about threats of a false FIR and exercised your statutory right by filing an RTI. The sequence of events is legally significant and materially strengthens your position.
It is important to understand that the mere registration of an FIR under Sections 74 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita does not establish guilt. Criminal law cannot be used as a tool of vendetta or to intimidate a government servant for performing official duties or for seeking information through RTI. Courts have consistently intervened where the criminal process is set in motion to silence whistle-blowers or public servants acting bona fide.
From your narration, several facts are crucial: you had already informed the police about threats of a false case; you filed an RTI against the authorities; the alleged incident occurred immediately thereafter; you were on official duty and carrying government cash; the alleged assailants fled; your own complaint was not acted upon; and yet an FIR was promptly registered against you. Taken together, these facts strongly support an inference of mala fide action and abuse of police power.
You should not remain passive in this situation. The correct course is to pursue judicial and administrative remedies in parallel. You should approach the jurisdictional High Court under its inherent powers seeking quashing of the FIR on the grounds that it is a counterblast to your RTI and prior complaint, that the allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, that there is no credible or independent corroboration, and that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process and violation of your fundamental rights. High Courts routinely quash FIRs in cases where criminal proceedings are initiated with a demonstrably retaliatory motive.
If there is any apprehension of arrest, you should also apply for anticipatory bail. Given that you are a government servant, that the alleged incident arose during discharge of official duty, and that you have cooperated with authorities, anticipatory bail is strongly maintainable and is likely to be granted. Once such protection is in place, the scope for police harassment reduces substantially.
The conduct of the police in refusing to act on your complaint while swiftly registering an FIR against you is itself illegal. You should make detailed written complaints to senior police authorities such as the Commissioner of Police or Superintendent of Police, the Vigilance Department, the Director General of Police, and the State Police Complaints Authority, clearly setting out the timeline of events, the prior threats, the RTI filing, and the biased conduct. If these representations do not yield results, you have the statutory remedy of approaching the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking directions for registration and investigation of your complaint, including against the erring police officials if the material supports such action.
Since you are a government servant and the incident occurred while you were on official duty, departmental protection is extremely important. You should submit a detailed written representation to your Head of Department placing all facts on record, seek official protection and legal assistance as per service rules, and request that no coercive action be taken without departmental intimation. Courts generally view criminal allegations against government servants arising from official acts with added caution.
You should immediately secure and preserve all available evidence. This includes CCTV footage of the staircase and office area, office entry and exit registers, duty rosters, movement registers, authorization records relating to cash handling, RTI acknowledgements, prior police complaints, and any call records or messages showing threats. Early preservation of evidence is critical, as delay often weakens an otherwise strong case.
Once the immediate pressure of arrest or coercive action is neutralised through bail or quashing, you may consider further remedies. These include initiating proceedings for false complaint, seeking departmental action against erring police officers, claiming compensation for malicious prosecution where appropriate, and invoking whistle-blower protections. Courts do not view kindly the misuse of criminal law to target RTI applicants or public servants acting in good faith.
On the facts as stated by you, the risk of conviction is low, custodial interrogation is unnecessary, and the case appears prima facie retaliatory. What is essential at this stage is timely, structured legal action rather than silence. If you proceed promptly on the above lines, judicial intervention is likely to correct the misuse of process and provide you protection.
