Central Information Commission
R P Gupta vs Delhi Police on 14 March, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
File no. CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/163578
File no. CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/134349
File no. CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/185477
File no. CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/119665
File no. CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/115228
File No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/132169
File No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/119666
File no. CIC/OODCS/A/2017/108362
Date of Hearing : 08.02.2018
Date of Decision : 28.02.2018
Complainant/Complainant : Mr. R P Gupta
Respondent : PIO
Addl. Dy. Commissioner of
Police,
Delhi Police
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
File no. RTI PIO reply First appeal FAO
163578 05.06.2017 04.07.2017 24.07.2017 04.09.2017
134349 08.03.2017 07.04.2017 - -
185477 04.07.2016 06.08.2016 02.09.2016 06.10.2016
119665 04.07.2016 06.08.2016 02.09.2016 06.10.2016
115228 17.10.2016 11.11.2016 13.12.2016 20.01.2017
132109 17.10.2016 11.11.2016 13.12.2016 20.01.2017
119666 17.10.2016 11.11.2016 13.12.2016 20.01.2017
108362 17.10.2016 11.11.2016 13.12.2016 20.01.2017
CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/163578
CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/134349
Information soughtand background of the case:
The appellant sought information regarding illegal building for which demolition and eviction orders were passed by the competent authority in 2013/14, sealing done by the competent authority in 2014 and FIR no. 1232 of 2014 filed by the competent authority in 2014. The appellant sought information in respect of following:-
1. Vide letter date 24.05.2017, SDMC/SZ has provided appellant a copy of letter sent by P.S. Mehrauli on 10.12.2016 to SDMC/SZ stating that Page 1 of 5 investigation in respect of FIR 1232/14 dated 25.07.2014 was carried out by them on 03.10.2016 and 2 individuals named in the said letter were bound dawn in the case and sought permission from SDMC/SZ permission u/s 467 DMC Act to prosecute the accused.
2. Vide letter dated 11.04.2017; the SDMC/SZ has given approval u/s 467 of DMC Act, a copy of which has also been provided to appellant.
3. Vide letter dated 20.01.2017, Dy. Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi enclosed the information furnished by the ACP/Mehrauli stating that "For investigation of the cases of DMC Act & 188 IPC, permission /sanction u/s 467 DMC Act & 195 Cr. P. C is mandatory. The same is still awaited from SDMC, Green Park.
The appellant sought reason for providing wrong information by PIO & FAA stating that investigations under FIR no. 1232 of 2014 have not been done for want of permission u/s 1952 Cr. P.C. and 467 of DMC Act when such investigations were already done by P.S. Mehrauli on 03.10.2016. Present status of prosecution of accused and other related information.
The CPIO, Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police vide letter dated 04.07.2017 furnished the point wise reply received from concerned as under:-
1. No wrong information was provided earlier as the case was pending investigation and permission u/s 195 Cr. P.C. was awaited from MCD, now the case has been chargesheeted on 25.05.2017 and sent to court vide R.C. No. 409/21/17, dated 29.05.2017.
2. The case was pending investigation for want of permission u/s 467 DMC Act and 195 Cr. P.C. and after obtaining the same the case has been chargesheeted.
3. The case is put in court.
4. All the relevant documents asked by the applicant are with the case file and the same is put in court.
5. The correspondence was made with SDMC for obtaining necessary permissions for prosecution.
Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal. FAA vide letter dated 04.09.2017 informed that the ACP/Mehrauli, Sub Divisions, South District, New Delhi was directed to provide the complete information on the instant appeal. Accordingly, he has furnished the required Page 2 of 5 information and the same is being sent to the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/185477 CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/119665 The appellant sought information regarding the request sent by SDMC, South Zone to the Dy. Commissioner of Police, South District to register an FIR against the owner/occupier of the property. In this respect appellant sought copy of the FIR registered on the basis of letter dated 24.07.2014 of SDMC, South Zone. Present status of the said FIR. Reasons for administrative /quasi judicial decision(s) of Delhi Police for not providing Police Force to the demolition squad of SDMC, South Zone. CPIO, Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, South District, vide letter dated 06.08.2016 furnished information as under:-
1. In this regard a case has already been registered vide FIR no. 1232/14 u/s 188 DMC Act at PS Mehrauli. Further, you may get the copy of FIR on Delhi Police website i.e. www.delhipolice.nic.in.
2. The case is pending investigation.
3. & 4.- Information mentioning the reason regarding non availability of force was supplied to MCD on the same day.
Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA vide letter dated 06.10.2016 upheld the reply of PIO. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/115228 CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/132169 CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/119666 CIC/OODCS/A/2017/108362 The appellant sought information relating to FIR no. 1232/14. He sought reasons for administrative /quasi judicial decision(s) of Delhi Police for not undertaking investigations for more than two years in the matter as the said FIR was registered on 25.07.2014. The PIO, Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, vide letter dated 11.11.2016 replied as under:-
"As per the report, case FIR no. 1232/14 is pending investigation because permission u/s 195 Cr. P.C. and 467 DMC Act is awaited from the concerned authorities."
Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA vide letter dated 20.01.2017 upheld the reply of PIO. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Page 3 of 5Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both the parties are present and heard. The Appellant states to be aggrieved with non-action of Delhi Police with respect to an instance of unauthorised construction which eventually led to filing to one FIR bearing No. 1232/2014. He states that despite lodging of said FIR, Delhi Police did not investigate the matter diligently and conducted the investigation in a callous manner with the intent of shielding the wrong doers. He states that the challan was not presented before the court of law on the pretext of seeking permission under Section 195 CrPc. He states that a delay of almost 2 years occasioned before proceeding with prosecution and thereafter, the Delhi Police prosecuted the accused without any sanction u/s 195. On the other hand, the PIO strongly refutes the allegations made by appellant. He states that the accused in the aforesaid FIR has been convicted by the court on 05.08.2017 which itself is a testimony to the fact that the investigation as well as the prosecution of offender was diligently done. He states that information regarding the aforesaid appeals have been furnished already to the appellant to which the appellant confronts the PIO with the apparent mismatch between the dates embossed on the letters and their date of despatch through post. A few letters along with accompanied envelops are produced before the Commission. In one of the instance, a letter dated 06.08.2016 has been despatched in October, 2016. The appellant makes a further request and seeks copy of the conviction order dated 05.08.2017 and does not trust the respective appeals. The PIO undertakes to secure a copy of the conviction order and furnish the same to the appellant within 3 weeks of receipt of this order.
Decision:
After hearing the parties and perusal of record, the Commission finds that the grievance of the appellant has been partially redressed. Information sought in the respective cases has been furnished. Furthermore, the respective appeals are not pressed by the appellant. The PIO shall abide by his undertaking and furnish a copy of conviction order to the appellant expeditiously.
However, the issue of despatching much antedated letters raises serious concern on the state of affairs prevailing in Delhi Police. Such instances shake the faith of citizenry on Delhi Police, which is not conducive for the effective administration of the National Capital Territory. Let a copy of this order be marked to Commissioner, Delhi Police for ensuring that no such event be further repeated.
The appeals are disposed of (Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Page 4 of 5 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.
(R. P. Grover) Designated Officer Page 5 of 5