Central Information Commission
Mr.Lt Col Ajit Singh vs Delhi Police on 12 August, 2013
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003073
August 12, 2013
Appellant : Lt Col. Ajit Singh (Retd.)
Respondents : Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 01.08.2013
ORDER
The present appeal filed by Lt Col. Ajit Singh (Retd.) against Delhi Police was taken up for hearing on 01.08.2013 when the Respondents were present through Shri Ram Singh, ACP. The Appellant was present in person. Facts of the case:
2. The Appellant filed his RTI application dated 29.03.2012 with the CPIO, Delhi Police, South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi seeking following information in respect of processing and outcome of his complaint dated 05.08.2010 to the police regarding theft in his shop:
"a) Please let me know the reasons for not registering the FIR despite the fact that commission of cognizable offences was disclosed from the content of my complaint CIC/SS/A/2012/003073 Page 1 of 5 2 dated 05/08/2010 and the document submitted to investigating officer as also evidence collected by Investigating officer including the statements of two persons in my neighborhood.
b) Please let me know when the original of my rent agreement with the P.S. Najafgarh will be returned....
c) Please also let me know as to what action on my representation to DCP South West District, which was sent on 01/09/2010
d) Please provide me the certified copy of complete document resting on the matter including the report of the enquiry by Senior officer, if any..."
3. The CPIO replied to this application vide his letter dated 27.04.2012. As for points a & b, the CPIO informed that "An enquiry was conducted by ASI, Nand Kishore and found that both the parties filed complaint cases u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. A status report has also been filed in Court. Hence no FIR was lodged. Action will be taken on the final outcome/view of the Court." As for points c, d & e, the CPIO denied the information u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
4. The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, filed an appeal dated 31.05.2012 before the Appellate Authority.
5. The Appellate Authority decided this appeal vide his order dated 02.07.2012 upholding the CPIO's reply.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the Appellant filed the present appeal before the Commission.
Decision:
2
7. Having heard the parties and perused the records, the Commission notes that the CPIO has only taken the plea that since the Appellant has approached the court under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., no FIR was lodged in the present case. The CPIO has not explained to the Appellant as to why the police have failed to lodge FIR in the first instance when the Appellant had filed complaint with them, forcing the Appellant to take recourse of section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. The CPIO also avoided answering point b of the RTI application where the Appellant wanted to know as to by what time his original rent agreement would be returned to him by police station, Najafgarh. The CPIO thereafter also went on to deny the information in respect of points c & d on the ground that the matter is still pending trial and thus attracts exemption u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. In point c, the Appellant wanted to know the action taken on his representation to DCP sent on 01.09.2010 which the CPIO could have easily provided to the Appellant. But he did not provide this information either.
8. Shri Ram Singh, ACP--representing the CPIO--during the hearing also does not explain how disclosure of information attracts exemption u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. He also has no explanation as to why the CPIO failed to answer point b of the RTI application and why the Appellant was not categorically told reasons for not registering FIR on his complaint in the first instance.
9. In view of the above, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to pass a speaking order in the matter clearly recording the reasons as to why FIR was not registered on the Appellant's complaint--originally filed with the police in the first instance. He should provide to the Appellant a copy of enquiry report conducted on his complaint. The CPIO, in his order, shall also state in clear terms how disclosure of information in respect of point d) would impede the process of investigation or prosecution of offenders. As for point b & c, the CPIO shall provide the requisite information to the Appellant. CIC/SS/A/2012/003073 Page 3 of 5 4
10. Appeal is disposed of with the above directions, which are to be complied with within 3 weeks of receipt of this order.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 4 Authenticated by (D.C. Singh) Deputy Registrar Address to the parties:
1. Lt Col. Ajit Singh (Retd.) RZ 267, Roshan Garden Najafgarh New Delhi
2. The Central Public Information Officer (RTI) & Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police Delhi Police, South West District Sector 19, Dwarka New Delhi 110075
3. The Appellate Authority (RTI) & Addl. Commissioner of Police Delhi Police, South West District Sector 19, Dwarka New Delhi 110075 CIC/SS/A/2012/003073 Page 5 of 5