Police complaint, inquiry report, statements etc. - PIO: the holder of the records retired and the file is untraceable - CIC: records are a Government property; locate the file and provide copy - in not traceable, provide action taken by the Police
Shri Rahul Kumar Goyal, hereinafter called the appellant has filed the present appeal dated 10.09.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Delhi Police, Outer District for not providing complete information in response to his RTI application dated 16.4.2012. The appellant was present whereas the respondent were represented by Shri M.A. Rizvi, Addl.DCP/CPIO, Shri Shambhoo Dayal, Inspector, Shri Krishanpal, ASI, Shri Rajender, SHO/Prashant Vihar.
2. The appellant through his RTI application dated 16.4.2012 sought information on the following four queries:
“(1) Whether his father in law Shashikant Kalgaonkar made police complaint dated 8.2.2005, 5.9.2005, 16.12.2005, 16.6.2008, 6.2.2011, 9.5.2011, 1.6.2011, 2.6.2011 against him and his family members or any other police complaint by him;
(2) What action has been taken on these police complaints;
(3) What are the documents attached with these police complaints; and
(4) Please provide copies of all police complaints with all the attachments and statements given by his wife Swati Kalgaonkar and by his in-laws Shashi Kant Kalgaonkar and Manju Kalgaonkar.”
The CPIO replied to the appellant, in seriatim, on the basis of report/comments/ documents obtained from SHO/Prashatn Vihar through ACP as follows:
“(1) As per the report of SHO/Prashant Vihar, Delhi no complaint for dated 8.2.2005, 5.9.2005, 16.12.2005, 16.6.2008, 6.2.2011, 9.5.2011, 1.6.2011 and 2.6.2011 filed by Shri S.K. Kalgaonkar against him and his family members. There were two complaints dated 9.9.2005 and 8.2.2011 filed by Shri Shashi Kant Kalgaonkar against him and his family members received at PS Prashant Vihar, Delhi;
(2 and 4) In this regard, the appellant can collect photocopy of requisite information/documents i.e. photo copy of complaint dated 8.2.2011 and its enquiry report as received from SHO through ACP on any working day after paying a sum of Rs. 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. consisting of 11 pages. Besides, as per the report of SHO record related to complaint dated 9.9.2005 was not available at PS Prashant Vihar and no statement of Smt. Swati Kalgaonkar, Shashi Kant and Manju Kalgaonkar was recorded during enquiry; and
(3) As per report of SHO the record related to complaint dated 9.9.2005 was not available at PS Prashant Vihar. No document was attached with complaint dated 8.2.2011.”
3. Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 28.5.2012 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order No. 384/Appeal/RTI/Outer District dated 23.6.2012 recorded that the contentions put forth by the appellant and report of the PIO/Outer District has been considered. The appellant has contended in his appeal that he is not satisfied by the reply received. He further requested to instruct the PIO to provide him the record related to complaint dated 9.9.2005 i.e. copy of police complaint, inquiry report, statements etc. and statements of Smt. Swati Kalgaonkar, Shashikant Kalgaonkar and Manju Kalgaonkar recorded during the enquiry of complaint dated 8.2.2011. The FAA remitted back the matter to the CPIO with the directions to provide complete and specific point-wise information as sought by the appellant vide his appeal, permissible under the ARI Act within seven days.
4. In compliance with the directions of the FAA, the CPIO vide letter No. 3521A/RTI Cell/Outer District dated 29.6.2012 informed the appellant as follows:
“(1) As per record of PS Prashant Vihar record related to complaint dated 9.9.2005 i.e. copy of police complaint, enquiry report, statement were with ASI Vinod Kumar then posted at PS Prashant Vihar. He is reported to be retired from Delhi Police;
(2) May please refer earlier reply in which it is mentioned that information regarding non-availability of statement of Smt. Shashikant, Swati and Manju was about complaint dated 8.2.2011 and not about complaint dated 9.9.2005; and
(3) In complaint dated 8.2.2011 no statement of Smt. Shashikant, Swati and Manju were recorded. Hence the statements were not available”.
5. In his second appeal filed before the Commission, the appellant states that the CPIO has explained that records related to complaint dated 9.9.2005 were with ASI Vinod Kumar and he is reported to have retired. He submits that police complaint records are Government property. It must be available within the police station. No person/officer can take/dispose of those records when he retires from service as claimed. Records must be handed over to the concerned staff/ SHO at the time of retirement.
6. During the hearing the respondent CPIO states that in this regard as per fresh report/comments of SHO/Prashant Vihar the complaint dated 9.9.2005 was received at PS Prashant Vihar and marked to then IO ASI Vinod Kumar who has retired from Delhi Police in the year 2005.
7. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the view that there is merit in the contention put forth by the appellant that the relevant records must be available at PS Prashant Vihar, which is a Government property and the retiring police official must handover the relevant records to the SHO/concerned staff. The Commission hereby directs the CPIO to locate the concerned file and provide copy of complaint dated 9.9.2005 along with relevant documents to the appellant. In case this complaint is not traceable, the CPIO is directed to provide specific reply stating action, if any, taken by the Police and the reasons thereof. The CPIO will comply with the directions of the Commission within three weeks of receipt of this order. The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission with above directions/observations.
Citation: Shri Rahul Kumar Goyal v. Delhi Police in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003232