Central Information Commission
Nikhil Kumar Sen vs Delhi Police on 18 April, 2019
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/128053
Nikhil Kumar Sen ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, O/o The Dy. Commissioner ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
of Police, Delhi Police, South East
District, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 24.02.2018 FA : 31.03.2018 SA : 29.04.2018
CPIO : 27.03.2018 FAO : 25.04.2018 Hearing : 09.04.2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o Dy. Commissioner of Police, South-East Dist., New Delhi, seeking information on three points pertaining to a complaint (Diary No. 968 c/R-SHO) filed by him on Page 1 of 5 27.08.2014 at P.S. Hazrat Nizamuddin, including, inter-alia, (i) the reasons for not registering the complaint in the Daily Diary, and (ii) certified copies of file noting, report, correspondence, etc., relating to the complaint.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO has deliberately provided incorrect and misleading information. He contended that the respondent did not provide the certified copies of the documents relating to the complaint whereas, he was asked to inspect the file by the FAA. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the desired information, to impose penalty upon the CPIO and to take necessary action against the respondent as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for providing misleading information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Nikhil Kumar Sen and the respondent Shri Kumar Jiweshwar, Inspector/ H. Nizamuddin, Delhi Police, Delhi were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that contradictory replies were provided to him wherein, in his initial reply dated 27.03.2018, the CPIO informed him that the complaint was inquired into, however, the same was filed as the appellant had not been able to justify as to why a case should be registered in the matter. However, in the fresh report provided to him after FAA's order, the CPIO stated that the complaint was pending inquiry and after registering an FIR under Section 156(3) of CrPC on the order of the Court, the matter is pending investigation. However, the respondent did not inform the correct position regarding the 'inquiry' into the Page 2 of 5 complaint to the Court. Hence, the respondent should inform him as to which reply is correct.
5. The respondent submitted that the appellant was informed that the complaint was received directly by the Reader to SHO and registered in the Local Complaint Register. Hence, no DD number was assigned to the complaint. However, an inquiry officer was assigned for the same. Further, after the FAA's order, the appellant was informed that at the time of inquiry into the complaint filed by the appellant, a FIR was registered under Section 156(3) of CrPC on the order of the Court and the matter is pending investigation. The respondent, however, could not explain as to which reply is correct as per the records.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the CPIO vide reply dated 27.03.2018 informed that the complaint was filed/closed as there were no valid grounds that warranted registration of a case in the matter. Further, as per the fresh report provided to the appellant in compliance of the FAA's order, the respondent stated that the complaint was pending inquiry at the time of receipt of the Court's order under Section 156(3) of CrPC directing the respondent authority to register FIR under Section 380 IPC. Hence, prima facie, it appears to the Commission that incorrect information had been furnished to the appellant vide reply dated 27.03.2018. Moreover, the respondent could not explain as to which reply is correct. The Commission, therefore, directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a Show Cause Page 3 of 5 Notice to Shri Amit Sharma, the then CPIO cum Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, South-East Dist., New Delhi and SI Bharat Singh, P.S. H. Nizamuddin, New Delhi for explaining as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against them. Shri Kumar Jiweshwar, Inspector/ H. Nizamuddin, Delhi Police, Delhi shall ensure that a copy of this order is served upon Shri Amit Sharma, the then CPIO cum Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, South-East Dist., New Delhi and SI Bharat Singh, P.S. H. Nizamuddin, New Delhi.
7. The Commission further directs the respondent to provide correct information regarding the status of the appellant's complaint as on the date of receipt of the RTI application to him within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 10.04.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) O/o Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, South East District Police, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) O/o Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, South East District Police, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi.
3. Shri Nikhil Kumar Sen Page 5 of 5