Central Information Commission
Ms. Kusum Lata vs Deputy Commissioner Of Police (Dcp) ... on 3 July, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00474 dated 3.4.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Ms. Kusum Lata
Respondent - Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) East Distt., Delhi
Facts:
By a request of 19.12.06 Ms. Kusum Lata of Savasthya Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi applied to the PIO Police HQ seeking the following information :
1. "Forgery, cheating and conspiracy are the offences against the society/ state and under what provisions SHO PS Shakarpur and DCP East refused to register this case.
2. Under what law prior approval of DCP is required to register cases of forgery, cheating and conspiracy as told by SHO Shakarpur.
3. DCP East had claimed to seek legal opinion on my complaint which he might have sought. Copy of the said legal opinion may also be supplied.
4. I am a victim of harassment, cruelty, torture and illegal demands of dowry at the hands of Narender Kumar Singh and his family and hence I am deeply concerned that a person (s) who has committed above mentioned crime should be fully exposed and brought on crime record. As per Sec 197 Cr. P.C. the case can be registered at the place where forgery was committed and also at the place where forged document was used. His office is not taking any action and is trying to shield him for reasons best known to them.
In this case the medical certificate was forged at Laxmi Nagar in the area of PS Shakarpur and was used by him in his office in Mumbai. Therefore under what provisions of law why the case of cheating and forgery cannot be registered against Narender Kumar Singh and Dr. Anil Kumar Sagar.
5. The photocopy of notings of DCP East on my complaint.
6. Opinion of SHO PS Shakarpur, ACP Preet Vihar, Jt. CP NDR and CP, Delhi may also be supplied."
To this she received a reply on 16.1.07 from PIO Shri Ajay Choudhry, DCP East Distt. Delhi, point-wise as follows:
11. "No cognizable offence is made out in the jurisdiction of PS Shakarpur, therefore, no FFIR was lodged at PS Shakarpur.
2. A case is registered immediately as and when any cognizable offence comes to the notice of police.
3. Seeking of legal opinion is a departmental procedure and the copy of the same cannot be provided as the same is exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
4. No cognizable offence is made out in the jurisdiction of this district.
Moreover, you have disclosed that you are a victim of cruelty, harassment, torture for which separate proceedings are under trial.
5. The copy of note set prepared on complaint/ enquiry report cannot be provided as the same is exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
6. The reply has been prepared after obtaining report/ opinion from SHO/ Shakarpur and ACP/ Preet Vihar, Seeking opinion from senior officers is a departmental procedure and the same cannot be supplied to you as the same is exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1)
(g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Moreover, we have forwarded your complaint to the Commissioner, Textile, Govt. of India, Ministry of Textile, Mumbai for further necessary action."
Upon this Ms Kusum Lata moved a first appeal on 19.1.07 before the First Appellate Authority, Shri Alok Kumar Verma, Jt. Commissioner of Police, pleading that "the reply was incomplete, misleading and incorrect on the points, as mentioned below", who in his order dated 20.2.07 found as follows :
"an appropriate reply has already been given to the appellant by the PIO/East District. The copies of documents as asked for, cannot not be supplied in view of section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act 2005. No cognizable offence is made out. However, DCP / East Distt. Vide letter No. 255/Compt.(E) (DA-II) dated 11.1.07 has already referred your complaint to the Commissioner, Textile, Govt. of India, Ministry of Textile, Mumbai for further action. We can act in the matter only when the complaint is received from the Ministry. The appeal is accordingly disposed off."
The prayer of Ms. Kusum Lata before us in 2nd appeal is as below:
1. "The forgery, cheating and conspiracy offences took place at D-72, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92 which falls in the area of PS Shakarpur and 2 all these are cognizable offences then why they are saying that no cognizable offence was committed in the jurisdiction of PS Shakarpur where complaint was made but the SHO refused to register the case without the prior approval of the DCP / East.
2. They have not mentioned the legal provisions under which prior approval of DCP is required for registering forgery, cheating and conspiracy offences.
3. They have refused to supply the photo copy of legal opinion and have claimed exemption u/s 8(1)(g) of RTI Act.
4. Copy of the comments / views of ACP, DCP, Jt. CP/NDR and CP Delhi on my complaint have not been supplied and have claimed exemption u/s 8(1)(g) of RTI Act.
5. They have mentioned that my complaint has been referred to the Commissioner, Textiles, GOI, M/O Textiles, Mumbai for further action but I have not been endorsed copy of the same. Therefore, I am in dark whether they have really referred my complaint to Commissioner Textiles Mumbai or otherwise."
In response to our appeal notice DCP Shri Ajay Choudhry PIO has submitted a detailed response both to the information sought by the applicant in her original application, in her first appeal of 19.1.07 and her prayer in second appeal. In this he has clarified in response to Q No. 2 as follows:
"As there is no such legal provision under which prior approval of DCP is required, nothing was mentioned."
The appeal was heard on 3.7.08. The following are present:
Respondents Mr. Ganga Sahai, APIO/E - ACP HQ E Mr. Mahavir Kaushik, Insp. IMV PS Shakarpur Mr. R.S.Ghuman, DCP Legal Cell.
Appellant Ms. Kusum Lata, informed by Notice dated 7.5.2008 regarding the hearing has opted not to be present. Each of the responses given by the PIO to the applicant against all six questions raised were examined. The information withheld was with regard to Q. Nos. 3, 5 & 6, details of which have been quoted in the quote from her application above. In each of these, exemption has been claimed u/s 8(1)(g) of the Act. Sec. 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act 2005 reads as follows :
8(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,--3
(g) 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;
On examination in the hearing it could not be established as to whose life or physical safety could possibly be endangered or which source of information given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes identified by disclosure of the documents sought in each of the above questions.
DECISION NOTICE Copies of the following documents, duly certified will be provided to appellant Ms. Kusum Lata within ten working days from the date of issue of this Decision Notice:
1) Legal opinion obtained.
2) Photo copy of notings of DCP (East) on her complaint.
3) Opinion of SHO Shakarpur, ACP Preet Vihar and Jt. CP NDR and
Commissioner of Police, Delhi, as available.
The reference and date of the forwarding of appellant's complaint to the Commissioner (Textiles), Govt. of India, Ministry of Textiles, Mumbai will also be provided to appellant.
The appeal is thus allowed. Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 3.7.2008 4 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 3.7.2008 5