CIC: Queries raised by the appellant requires trial of the matter at hand; CIC cannot sit in trial over correctness of the investigation conducted by the police; Grievance of the appellant can be decided by the concerned Court where the matter is pending
7 May, 2018Since the parties in all of the above cases are common, the matters are clubbed for the purpose of effective adjudication
Information sought and background of the case:
CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/101314
Vide RTI application dated 12.09.2017, addressed to the Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, East District, the appellant sought information regarding copy of complaint letters dated 13.06.2017 & 19.06.2017 and the enquiry report dated 23.06.2017 and other dated 25.04.2015 & 01.08.2015 addressed to DCP(E)/ACP(PG Cell)/(E) to lodge FIR under proper section of IPC against (i) Rahul Chaudhary S/o. Shri Ajab Singh. (ii) Sandeep @ Sanjeev S/o. Shri Raj Kumar. He sought information/documents on nine points:-
1. & 2. Copies of DD Entry lodged vide DD No. 24-B dated 24.05.2017 and DD No. 20-A dated 23.06.2017 at PS Mandawali Delhi-110092.
3. Copy of Kalandra u/s 107/150 Cr. P.C. prepared vide DD No. 20-A dated 23.06.2017 at PS Mandawali along with the supporting documents annexed.
4. & 5. Whether the kalandra u/s 107/150 Cr. P.C. prepared vide DD No. 60-B dated 10.12.2016 and DD No. 20-A dated 23.06.2017 at PS Mandawali has been filed/produced before the Hon’ble Court of SEM/East or the same is still lying pending with the local police of PS-Mandawali.
6. Whether the supporting documents furnished/annexed by him with his complaints dated 13.06.2017, 19.06.2017 and others dated 25.04.2015 & 01.08.2015 have been verified/considered in enquiry conducted by PG Cell, East District, Delhi which are available on record with the PG Cell(E) of Delhi Police.
7. & 8. Copy of Rule(s)/Direction(s), if any, followed by the PG Cell (E), Delhi Police pertaining to the enquiry conducted on his above dated complaints. And copy of guidelines of Delhi Police regarding lodging in FIR etc...
Shri R. Sathiyasundaram, IPS, PIO & Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, East District vide letter dated 11.10.2017 stated that point wise information has provided to the appellant. He further states that appellant was advised to inspect the record and take information/documents on payment of stipulated charges any working day between 10 AM to 5 PM.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 25.10.2017. Shri OMVIR SINGH, IPS, FAA/DCP, East District, disposes off the appeal vide order dated 27.11.2017 stated as under:-
“The PIO/East Distt. is hereby directed to reconsider the RTI application of the appellant and provide the copy of DD entry and S.O No. 102/2009 to the appellant within 10 working days.”
Feeling aggrieved over non compliance of FAO, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/132491
Vide RTI application dated 23.02.2017, addressed to the Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, East District, the appellant sought information as under:-
“The information on the circumstances under which, the disclosure statement of only me and my family members showing the answers given by us to the question of the IO of the case vide FIR No. 822/14 which were recorded by him during investigation of the case and in which facts were disclosed by us has not been annexed/included and made as a part of charge sheet of the case vide FIR No. 822/14 similar to the other accused persons as the disclosure statement of all other accused in both the cases vide FIR NO. 821/14 and 822/14 have been annexed/included and made as a part of charge sheet.”
Shri R. Sathiyasundaram, IPS, PIO & Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, East District vide letter dated 30.03.2017 stated as follows:
“As per report received from concerned, the chargesheet in case FIR No. 821/14 U/s 323/452/509/147/148/308/34 IPC & 822/14 U/s 323/341/308/147/148/149/506/34 IPC, PS Mandawali have been filed in the Hon’ble Court after completion of investigation. Both of the cases are pending trial in the Hon’ble KKD Court.”
Dissatisfied response received from the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 12.04.2017. Shri OMVIR SINGH, IPS, FAA/DCP, East District, disposes off the appeal vide order dated 03.05.2017 stated as under:-
“The relevant documents and found that requisite available information has already been provided to the appellant. No ground has been found to interfere in the reply furnished by the PIO/East.”
Feeling aggrieved over the FAA’s decision, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/107268
Vide RTI application dated 04.11.2016, addressed to the Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, East District, the appellant sought information as under:-
(i) Whether complaints/representations dated 19.02.2011, 28.03.2011, 20.10.2014, 25.10.2014, 26.10.2014, 28.11.2014, 12.12.2014, 13.12.2014, 15.12.2014, 05.02.2014, 15.02.2014, 08.03.2015 and numerous other given by me and my family members to the police officers concerned for the illegality adopted by Shri. Rahul Chaudhary have been included and considered in investigation of the case vide FIR NO. 822/14.”
(ii) As per information received from Delhi Police under RTI Act,2005, DD no. 44A,45A, 46A all dated 31.08.2014 are for the incident which was taken place on 31.08.2014 at Gali No. 22, Railway Conlony, Mandawali, Delhi on which FIR No. 821/14 was registered with the PS Mandawali against Sh. Rahul Chaudhary and associates.
(iii) Information on action taken by police on his complaint dated 26.10.2016 addressed to the SHO, PS, Mandawali, Delhi-92.
Shri R. Sathiyasundaram, IPS, PIO & Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, East District vide letter dated 24.11.2016 stated that point wise information as follows:
(i) This information is voluminous, lengthy & time consuming in nature. No such type of separate records is being maintained. However, you may inspect the relevant available records of police station Mandawali and collect the requisite information/documents with prior intimation to this office as per RTI norms on any working day.
(ii) The case FIR No. 821/14 and 822/14 is pending trial in the Hon’ble Court. Further regarding DD entries you may inspect the DD register for the date mentioned in your RTI application.
(iii) The complaint is pending enquiry. Action will be taken as per the outcome of enquiry. Dissatisfied response received from the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 06.12.2016.
Shri OMVIR SINGH, IPS, FAA/DCP, East District, disposes off the appeal vide order dated 09.01.2017 stated as under:-
“The relevant documents and found that requisite information has already been provided to the appellant. No ground has been found to interfere in the reply furnished by the PIO/East.”
Feeling aggrieved over the FAA’s decision, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/124827
Vide RTI application dated 05.01.2017, addressed to the Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, East District, the appellant sought information regarding the incident dated 31.08.2014 at Gali No. 22, Railway Colony Mandawali. He sought information on seven points:-
(i) & (v) Complete information on action taken by ASI Bhagwat Parsad o PCR call which was received and entered with PS Mandawali vide DD Entry No.47 A dated 31.08.2014 and DD No. 45 A dated 31.08.2016 and marked to ASI Bhagwat Parsad for the above mentioned incident
(ii) Photocopy of DD Entry No. 47A dated 31.08.2016 entered with PS Mandawali for the incident.
(iii) & (vi) Time of raving of ASI Bhagwat Prasad o PCR call which was received and entered with PS Mandawali vide DD Entry No.47 A dated 31.08.2014 and DD NO. 45 A dated 31.08.2014 and marked to ASI Bhagwat Parsad for the above mentioned incident.
(iv) No.(s) of other PCR call, if any, which were received and entered with PS Mandawali vide DD No. 47A dated 31.08.2014 for the incident.
(vii) No.(s) of other PCR call, if any, which were received and entered with the PS Mandawali vide DD No. 45A dated 31.08.2014 for the above mentioned incident.
Shri Radha Raman/APIO, East District vide letter dated 07.02.2017 stated that point wise information has provided to the appellant and also stated that to deposit fee and take the information/documents.
Dissatisfied response received from the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 22.02.2017. Shri Omvir Singh, IPS, FAA/DCP, East District, disposes off the appeal vide order dated 27.03.2017 stated as under:-
“The relevant documents and found that requisite available information has already been provided to the appellant. No ground has been found to interfere in the reply furnished by the PIO/East.”
Feeling aggrieved over the FAA’s decision, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Appellant is a govt servant and alleges that he has been falsely implicated in a case. In 2014 a dispute had arisen in the neighbourhood of the appellant and as an aftermath of the same his family was dragged into some random dispute resulting in historical enmity of the appellant’s family with some neighbours. The respondent states that some information sought by the appellant is in the nature of grievance and the same could not be furnished. Remaining information as it exists in documentary form were provided either at the level of PIO or at the Appellate stage before the FAA. The respondent further adds that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is pending, charges have been framed against the appellant and his sons, before the Court. Hence, the relevant files related with the case has been submitted before the concerned court and information available with the Police have been provided already.
Decision:
After hearing the parties and perusal of records, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the queries raised by the appellant requires trial of the matter at hand. However, this Commission cannot sit in trial over correctness of the investigation conducted by the police. It can safely be assumed and expected that the Police has done its investigation on the basis of evidence available in the matter. It is further noted that the grievance of the appellant can be decided by the concerned Court where the matter is pending. No cause of action arises for the Commission to adjudicate since available information has admittedly been provided to the appellant.
The appeals are disposed of
(Yashovardhan Azad)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. D. K. PAL v. PIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, East District, Patparganj, Mandawali in File No.:- CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/101314 CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/132491 CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/107268 CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/124827, Date of Decision: 14.03.2018