From the facts stated by you, this appears to be a classic case of retaliatory and motivated prosecution following your RTI activity, compounded by police inaction on your complaint and active collusion in registering an FIR against you under Sections 74 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The law does provide effective remedies in such situations, provided they are invoked in the correct sequence and forum.
First, as regards the FIR already registered against you, quashing is very much a viable remedy. High Courts have inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (read with the corresponding BNSS provisions) to quash proceedings where the FIR is manifestly malicious, absurd, or an abuse of process. Your case has several strong factors in favour of quashing: you are a government servant on duty, the complainants are admittedly unknown to you, there is no prior connection established, the alleged purpose of their visit is implausible in light of office timing, you have one year’s CDR showing no contact with them, you have contemporaneous call records showing you were speaking to your father at the exact time alleging assault, and the allegation surfaced immediately after RTI-related friction with the police. Courts treat such circumstances very seriously, especially where a public servant is targeted after exercising a statutory right like RTI.
The fact that police civic volunteers recorded videos does not automatically incriminate you. Videos are evidence, but their probative value depends on what they actually show. If the video does not clearly show you committing any offence, using force, or behaving unlawfully, it does not advance the prosecution case. More importantly, selective videography by police volunteers, especially when the complainants allegedly fled immediately after, raises serious doubts about manipulation. Courts are cautious when video evidence is produced by interested or collusive parties without an unbroken chain of custody.
Your call detail records and call recordings are critical. The call with your father during the alleged incident time directly supports your version that you were being assaulted, not that you were the aggressor. This is contemporaneous evidence and is far more credible than post-event statements of unknown women. Preserve the original device, SIM, and recordings carefully. These can be certified under Section 65B of the Evidence Act when required.
As regards the police ignoring your assault complaint, yes, you should not let that lapse. You have two parallel remedies, and both can be pursued simultaneously. First, you can file a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 200 CrPC, narrating the assault, police inaction, identity of civic volunteers involved, and enclosing your documentary proof. The Magistrate has the power to direct investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC or to take cognizance directly. Courts are particularly sensitive when police refuse to register FIRs against politically or administratively motivated offenders.
Second, a writ petition before the High Court is strongly advisable in your case. You can seek a writ of mandamus for a fair and independent investigation, preferably by an agency other than the local police station, on the ground of demonstrable bias, collusion, and retaliation for RTI. High Courts routinely entertain such petitions where there is material showing mala fide police conduct. Your prior complaints to the SP, RTI filings, call recordings with the ASI, and the suspicious inspection for CCTV after the incident are all relevant to establish mala fides.
Regarding the ASI’s inspection of CCTV after the incident and your recorded call with him, this is extremely important. It indicates an attempt to shape or control evidence rather than to impartially investigate. This strengthens your case both for quashing and for a fair investigation order. Preserve the original recording and note the date, time, and device used.
As for what the prosecution can realistically do with the video, their scope is limited. They may try to use it to suggest presence or altercation, but without clear proof of criminal intent or acts by you, it does not meet the legal threshold for sustaining prosecution. Mere presence or verbal exchange does not constitute offences under Sections 74 or 79 BNS unless specific ingredients are satisfied. If the FIR does not disclose those ingredients clearly, that itself is a ground for quashing.
In terms of sequence, the most effective approach is this: file a quashing petition before the Calcutta High Court placing the FIR, your RTI background, CDRs, call recordings, duty records, and police inaction on record. Simultaneously or shortly thereafter, file a private complaint before the Magistrate for the assault and intimidation. If necessary, add a writ petition seeking a court-monitored or independent investigation into both the false case against you and your ignored complaint. These proceedings reinforce each other.
Your chances of quashing are strong, provided the material is properly presented. Courts do not tolerate misuse of criminal law to silence RTI applicants or to protect police misconduct. The fact that you are a government servant performing official duties further tilts the balance in your favour.
Do not rely only on departmental representations, as they have limited coercive effect. Judicial intervention is now necessary. Engage a criminal lawyer experienced in High Court practice, ensure all electronic evidence is preserved in original form, and proceed decisively. If handled correctly, the proceedings against you can be quashed at the threshold, and accountability can be fixed for the false case and police inaction.
