Central Information Commission
Shri Jawahar Lal vs Deputy Commissioner Police (Dcp) Sw on 10 December, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00970 dated 24-9-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Jawahar Lal
Respondent: Deputy Commissioner Police (DCP) SW
FACTS
By an application of 28-3-07 Shri Jawahar Lal applied to the PIO, DCP (SWD), Vasant Vihar, New Delhi seeking the following information:
"1. Were any steps taken by the IO to restore my land in the ambit of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, in case FIR No. 1018/2006 u/s 3 SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, P. S. Najafgarh, New Delhi? Will you issue the directions to SHO/ Najafgarh to restore it with the help of revenue staff now?
2. It has been mentioned by the IO in the brief facts produced by him in the SC/ST Commi9ssion on 22.12.2006 that "After the completion of the investigation challan has been prepared on 15.12.2008 and the same is under scrutiny by the Prosecution Branch but you have applied Sec 8 (1) (h) in the information's given by you on 22.1.2007 at serial No. 1 (d), 2, 3, 8 (b), 9, 11 and 14 which says that the investigation is in process, which one of the above two contradictory statements is correct?
3. Please let me know the status of the complaint made by Shri Lal Singh against me for which I was called by SI Mahesh Prakash on 13.1.2007 in the Vigilance Branch of South West Distt. A certified copy of his complaint may also be provided to me please.
4. Please supply the copy of the recommendations made by SC/ST Commission for compliance in case FIR No. 1018/2006 Najafgarh to you either by the commission directly or through the worthy C. P. Delhi. Have all the recommendations made by the commission been implemented? If not, please mention the reason.
5. It is learnt that the Honourable CP Delhi has transferred the case No. 1018/06,966/06 and 967/06 to Crime Branch for further investigation, please supply the copy of the order. The copy of the Road certificate with date may also be supplied through which these cases were sent to Crime Branch for further investigation.1
6.(a) Is it not correct that the facts have been concealed from the court by the IO because the report provided by Patwari and Girdawar in case FIR No. 1018/06 PS Najafgarh on 27.12.2006 says that Khasra No. 26/13/2 Roshan Pura does not exist but even than the GPA etc produced by the accused Lal Singh which hare having the same Khasra No were placed on judicial file knowingly to be used as genuine.
(b) When the facts came into the notice of the IO that the GPA etc produced by the accused Lal Singh are forged, why a separate case was not registered on that basis against these accused persons because the Police is legally bound to register a case on the information received orally or in writing of a cognisable offence?
(c) Will you direct SHO Najafgarh to register a case against the persons who prepared these forged documents and grabbed the land in question?
7. Please supply the information about those compelling circumstances in which the challan dated 15.12.2006 in case FIR No. 1018/06 P. S. Najafgarh was replaced.
8. Please supply the reasons that neither the case was registered nor any preventive measures were taken on 8.10.2006 on my complaint in the odd hrs of night.
9.(a) Was it not necessary to place the 100 number call made by me to PCR on 8.10.2006 and its corresponding DD entry on the judicial file of case FIR No. 1018/06 PS Najafgarh or was it done intentionally to save the accused persons from judicial verdict because it was the continuing offence of the incident of 19.10.2006 at 12.00 noon. Was it wilful neglect of duties of the IO?
(b) Both the officials who recorded the above mentioned calls were not cited as PW in case FIR No. 1018/06? Was it also done intentionally to save the accused persons from legal punishment or was it the wilful neglect of duties of the IO?
10. I have got a certified copy of application of Shri Sudhir Shorkeen dated 19th April 2005, addressed to the Police Commissioner of Delhi, from the judicial file of case FIR No. 1018/06 P. S. Najafgarh, New Delhi. Was it the negligent act of the IO to place it unnecessarily on judicial file of the above mentioned case or placed it with some ill will motivated attitude? (copy of the application is attached).2
11. The IO has placed two different copies of the FIR No. 1018/06 PS Najafgarh in the judicial file. One of them is containing 4 pages and the other is containing 3 pages.
In column No. 7 of one of these is having the name of only one accused i.e. .Lal Singh but the column No. 7 of the second is black where as the contents of the FIR speaks about more accused persons. What is the intention behind it? (Copies of both the FIR's are attached).
12. Please supply the copy of the objections raised by the Prosecution Branch during Scrutiny of case FIR No. 1018/06 PS Najafgarh, New Delhi.
13. Ct. Bhom pal No. 793/SW was not cited as PW in the list of witnesses of the challan dated 15.12.2006 but his name was included in the list of witnesses of the challan dated 1.1.2007. why he was noticed a witness by the IO when the challan was prepared on 15.12.2006? Is it correct that he is a false witness?
14. Why any legal action was not taken against Mrs. Lal Singh and her three associates who trespassed my house on 8.10.2006 at about 11.00 pm assaulted and threatened to occupy my plot forcefully because it was a continuing offence of the occurrence of 9.10.2006 at 12.00 noon? Is it correct that the IO concealed the PCR call dated 8.10.2006 to save Mrs. Lal Singh and his associates? Will you take any action against him?
15. Shri Dharambir Singh who claims to be a relative of DCP/SW Shri R. S Yadav was sheltering the accused persons and had a criminal conspiracy for grabbing land was not arrested by the IO why?
16. There are three pages in the veering letter regarding the documents provided by me but the IO has shown in the challan dated 5.12.2006 three pages and in the challan dated 1.1.2007 I page, why?
17. How many statements were recorded by the IO U/s 161 Cr.PC in case FIR No. 1018/06 PS Najafgarh? Please give the details of dates of their recording. The time of recordings of their statements may please be provided separately please supply the copies of these statements which are with case diaries in V.R. K. PS Najafgarh under your control.
318. All the case dairies in case FIR No. 1018/06 are kept in VRK PS Najafgarh, which is under your control. Please supply these case diaries.
19. Will you take any action against the IO of the case FIR No. 967/06 PS Najafgarh, who registered the false case against me and my sons without verifying the facts?
20. Please supply the copies of daily Diary "A&B" of PS Najafgarh w.e.f. 7.10.2006 to 21.3.2007.
21 (a) It is mentioned in letter No. 207 R-ACP/NG dated 3.2.2007 by Shri R. S. Bhatnagar, ACP Najafgarh that, "but in the mean time I had arrived and S. I Johnny Anto and Inspector H. S. Meena handed over the papers to me". Please let me know the "Mean Time" as mentioned in this letter by the ACP that what was that time when he arrived and the papers were handed over to him by SI Johnny Anto and Inspector H. S. Meena?
(b) Who handed over the papers to ACP Najafgarh either SI Johnny Anto or Inspector H. S. Meena."
To this he received a response on 25-4-07 point-wise from DCP (SW) as follows:-
"1. Since the proper demarcation and Khasra No. of plot in issue was not provided by the revenue officials, the picture of ownership is not clear and the question of restoration does not arise. However, the cases are being investigated by Crime Branch of Delhi Police.
2. The preparation of challan does not mean the completion of investigation. The same is continuing till the compliance of objections raised by the prosecution is cleared and the case is sent to court for trial. Hence, the statements are not contradictory.
3. The same cannot be provided in view of section 11 of RTI Act.
4. The case has been challaned and sent to court by this Distt, but the same is being enquired by Crime Branch of Delhi Police, hence you may approach there.
5. The copies of RC's regarding FIR No. 966 and 967/06 for the transfer o the investigation are attached herewith. However, Crime Branch has been informed to make further investigation if found necessary and present IO of 4 the case Shri Joy Tirky has already appeared before the Hon'ble Court in this regard.
6. (a) No facts have been concealed from the court. The photocopy of papers produced by Shri Lal Singh and yourself have been attached with the judicial file and if any forgery is found in these papers, after the report of the revenue officials, appropriate action will be taken through supplementary challan.
(b) It is not established that the GPA is forged.
However, the Tehsildar has already been requested in this regard and the exercise is underway.
(c ) Since no forgery has come into notice, no such case is registered.
7. The challan dated 15.12.2006 was a draft challan and after due completion of objections raised by the Prosecution branch, a fresh challan 2was filed. It is the privilege of the IO. However, there were no such compelling circumstances.
8. The incident occurred late in the night of 8.10.2006 at around 11 pm and hence the case vide FIR No. 966/06 on your complaint after making formal inquiries and hence there was no delay.
9. (a) The requisite information does not falls under the category of information as per section 2 (f) of RTI Act.
(b) Same as above.
10. No such application was enclosed knowingly in the juridical file and also there is no mention in the list of documents attached with the challan of the case. However ACP/SHO Najafgarh have been briefed in this regard.
11. One is a carbon copy of FIR lodged in the FIR book and when it was fed in the computer (CIPA) from the contents of the FIR the name of the accused was added. The other is computer-generated printout. Hence there is no intention.
12. The requisite information is exempted u/s 8 (i) (e) & (g) of RTI Act.
13. The investigation is no complete till the objection raised by the prosecution branch has been cleared and the case is sent t Court for trial. The challan prepared earlier was a draft challan. It is the prerogative of the IO to 5 improve it with the consultation of prosecution branch, in the interest of justice.
14. For the incident dated 8.10.2006, two separate cross cases vide FIR Nos. 966/06 and 967/06 were registered and the same are pending investigation with crime branch and you may join the investigation there regarding your grievances. The rest of requisite information does not fall under the category of section 2 (f) of RTI Act.
15. No such evidence came on record during the course of investigation.
16. Even if some clerical mistake is there, there is no intention of hiding of any document since all the three pages of the covering letter are attached with the final challan/ judicial file.
17. The statements are part of investigation and since the case is under investigation with crime branch, the details cannot be provided as it can impede the process of investigation as per section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act.
18. Same as above.
19. The requisite information does not falls under the category of information as per section 2(f) of RTI Act.
20. Since the case are pending investigation with crime Branch of Delhi Police, the details can not be provide as it can impede the process of investigation as per section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act. However, the relevant information in this regard has already been provided to you in reference the orders solicited by the Appellate Authority.
21. (a) The ACP arrived after 5 minutes after the applicant departed
(b) SI Johnny Anto."
Not satisfied, appellant Shri Jawahar Lal moved his first appeal before JCP, Southern Range who by order of 19-6-07 has directed that part of the information be provided. Although some information was sought to be provided in compliance by the DCP through his letter of 11-4-07, the appellant's prayer in his second appeal before us is as follows:
"Therefore, it is requested to your kind Honour that keeping in view the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the penalty may please be imposed upon the PIO/DCP/SWD Shri R. S. Yadav and the disciplinary action against him may also be taken 6 for violation of Law under the Services Rule applicable to him u/s 20 of RTI Act, 2005. The direction may also be issued to him to supply the correct information's and pass such other orders also which your Honour deem fit, in the interest of Justice."
The appeal was heard on 10-12-08. Following are present.
Appellant Shri Jawahar Lal.
Respondents Shri L. C. Jain, LA/CP on behalf of Spl. CP. Shri S. R. Yadav, ACP.
Ms. Shalini Singh, DCP/SW.
Ms. Sharmila, ASI In arguing the matter, however, appellant Shri Jawahar Lal contended that the entire Police Department was corrupt and he could not expect to get justice from the present DCP or from JCP Shri Rajesh Kumar who in his view were all complicit in a corrupt conspiracy directed against him. It is for this reason that he has sought imposition of penalty DECISION NOTICE From the above arguments it is clear that appellant Shri Jawahar Lal has challenged the entire basis on which information has been sought to be supplied in the present case and also contended that he cannot hope for obtaining the information sought through established police structure. In this context he also submitted a copy of a letter from DCP (Hq.) of 20-9-08, which he states is an order of Commissioner of Police that the Police Department he alleged has itself disobeyed. In this letter of 4-9-08 DCP (Hq.) has stated as follows:
"The matter regarding making security arrangements for Inspr. Jawahar Lal has been examined in this Hdqrs and it has been decided that a weapon may be issued to Inspr. Jawahar Lal for his own safety and security. It is requested that necessary action may please be taken under intimation to this Hdqurs."
Under the circumstances any decision made on this subject under the RTI Act is likely to be infructuous, since this amounts to a grave accusation of corruption, no longer a request for information. Besides, the application of 7 appellant Shri Jawahar Lal has been responded to in time and point-by-point. There can be no ground for penalty on this account.
In light of the above, this matter is referred to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi in whom appellant Inspector Jawahar Lal has expressed full confidence who may have the charges of corruption hurled by appellant Jawahar Lal in such manner as he may deem fit. Not being a request for information, this appeal is, therefore, now closed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 10-12-2008 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.
(LC Singhi) Registrar 10-12-2008 8