Seeking copy of complaint and its status - Civil Suit was filed with Delhi High Court - enquiry File was transferred to Anti Extortion Cell - CIC: since the matter is under investigation, the documents cannot be provided u/s 8(1)(h)
3 Oct, 2013ORDER
1. The appellant has through his RTI application dated 3.5.2012 sought information on the following seven queries:
(I) Copy of complaint No. 2292 dated 19.8.2004 along with documents filed before the EOW (Crime) field by Mrs. Madhuri Sharma /Mr. Neeraj Sharma/ Mr. Panka Sharma
(II) Copy of complaint No,. 2329 dated 20.8.2004 along with documents filed before the EOC (Crime filed by above said persons;
(III) Provide the status of complaint Nos. 2292 dated 19.8.2004 and complaint No. 2329 dated 20.8.2004 along with copy of final findings/report of the said complaints;
(IV) Kindly inform whether any document in pursuance of the above complaints and their enquiry were sent for signature/hand-writing verification. If yes, kindly provide status report/CFSL report/FSL report;
(V) Kindly inform in pursuance of the above complaints, whether the signatures/ hand-writing of Mrs. Madhuri Sharma on the rent agreement dated 28.6.1977 executed between Mr. P.M. Sengupta and Mrs. Madhuri Sharma and in continuation the rent agreement dated 20.10.1977 executed between Mr. P.M. Sengupta and Mrs. Madhuri Sharma were sent for verification. If yes, kindly provide status report/ CFSL report/FSL report; and
(VI) Whether it has been verified that Mrs. Madhuri Sharma is a tenant in the property E-888 C.R. Park, New Delhi. The appellant states that he has purchased the said property E-888, CR Park, New Delhi vide registered sale deed dated 28.7.1999 and sold the property to Mr. Harvinder Singh vide Registered sale Deed dated 3.2.2002. The appellant stated that he is an accused/party in both the complaints and then had been joining the investigation with Shri Jakhar, Inspector (EOW) and Inspector S.S. Gill (EOW) and had submitted the chain of title deeds to help in the investigation, along with copy of seizure memo”.
The CPIO vide letter No. 167/RTI/ALBR/EOW, Crime Branch dated 14.6.2012 informed the appellant that after inquiry the complaints were closed as no cognizable offence was found made out and denied information under the provisions of section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act.
2. Aggrieved reply of the CPIO, filed his first appeal on 14.7.2012 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order No. 389/RTI/EOW, Crime Branch, dated 14.8.2012 upheld the reply of the CPIO on Point No,. 1 and 2 of the RTI application, which was processed u/s 11 of the RTI Act but concerned parties have not given their willingness/consent to share the information. At Point No. 3 the appellant was informed that after the enquiry the complaints were filed. On remaining points the information could not be provided as the disclosure of the same may endanger the life and physical safety of the concerned persons, under the provisions of section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act.
3. During the hearing the appellant requests information on Point No. 6 of the RTI application in which he sought whether it has been verified that Mrs. Madhuri Sharma is a tenant in the property E-888, C.R. Park, New Delhi.
4. The CPIO during the hearing states that the appellant Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta and Harvidner Singh (other appellant) are accused in case FIR No. 253104, PS C.R. Park u/s 387/506/507 IPC. Harvinder Singh has filed a Civil Suit in Hon’ble Delhi High Court regarding same property No. E-888, C.R. Park, New Delhi. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had summoned the I.O. and ACP/ALBR Section, Crime Branch on 2.7.2013 in D.A. No. 2073 of 2013 in CS(OS) No. 154 of 2004, on the application filed by Harvinder Singh and Enquiry File of EOW was also summoned. The Enquiry File from EOW has already been transferred to Anti Extortion Cell (AEC), Crime Branch on 12.4.2013 for further inquiry into the matter as the case FIR No. 253/04, PS CR Park is presently pending investigation with Anti Extortion Cell (AEC), Crime Branch. The required documents i.e. copies of both the complaints, FSL report etc. were supplied to the counsels of the petitioner as per directions of Hon’ble High Court.
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the view that now the matter is under investigation by Anti Extortion Cell of Crime Branch of Delhi Police, the documents as sought for by the appellant at Point No. 6 of the RTI application cannot be provided under the provisions of section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act. Moreover, the respondent already provided copies of both the complaints, FSL report etc. as per directions of Hon’ble High Court. The present appeal is bereft of merit and is dismissed. The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta v. Delhi Police, EOW in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003772