Central Information Commission
Mohit Budhiraja vs Delhi Police on 29 March, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
BABA GANGNTH MARG, MUNIRKA
New Delhi-110067
F. No.CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/167314
F. No.CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/163259
F. No.CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/163241
F. No.CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/189922
F. No.CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/182030
Date of Hearing : 14.03.2018
Date of Decision : 27.03.2018
Appellant/Complainant : Mr. Mohit Budhiraja
Respondent : PIO,
Addl. Dy. Commissioner of
Police-II,
East District
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Case No. RTI filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
167314 19.05.2017 19.06.2017 14.07.2017 03.08.2017
163259 15.05.2017 03.06.2017 18.07.2017 21.07.2017
163241 09.05.2017 16.05.2017 19.05.2017 02.06.2017
189922 06.02.2015 - - -
182030 03.09.2014 - - -
Since the parties in all of the above cases are common, the matters are
clubbed for the purpose of effective adjudication.
ORDER
1. The present clutch of appeals and accompanied complaints emanate from respective RTI applications. The common background which led to filing of applications for information is that the appellant was implicated as accused in FIR No. 288/2015 at Police Station Jagatpuri (Delhi). The contents of the FIR read as:
ब्यान अजाने लक्ष्य चौहान S/O श्री राजपाल चौहान R/O H.NO 14/93 गीता कलोनी ददल्ली 110031 उम्र 17 वर्ष PH. No. 9899968900, 9811282843 ब्यान दकया दक मै पता उपरोक्त पर अपने माता दपता के साथ रहता हूं और बाल मन्दिर दसनीयर से केन्ड्री स्कूल दडफेन्स ऐन्कलेव मे 12th क्लास मे पढाई करता हूँ आजददनाूँ क 9/5/15 को मे समय करीब 07.30 AM पर मै घर से स्कूल जा रहा था जब मै पै दल पै दल चलकर नाला रोड NEAR जगतपुरी थाने के पास से गुजर रहा था तो मेरे पडोस मे रहने वाला मोदहत बुन्दिराजा अचानक मेरे सामने आ गया और मुझे रास्ते मे रोक दलया और बोला दक तेरे बाप ने मुझे बहुत परे शान कर रखा है आऐददन मेरी दशकायत करता रहता है औरमुझे पकडकरएक थप्पड मेरे मुूँह पर मारा मै घबरा गया औरभागने लगा दजसने मुझे पकड दलया और अपने दाऐ हाथ मे दलए हुए छोटे से डूं डे से मेरी दपटाई कर दी और मै दगर गया इस दौरान मेरे बाऐ हाथ की कलाई के मास मे चोट आईहै जो मेरे शोर मचाने पर भाग गया औरमैने 100 न. पर पुदलस को फोन कर ददया औरमैने अपने पापा को भी फोन कर बतला ददया जो मेरे पापा आगये औरमुझे इलाज के दलए MAX है ल्थ केयर HOSPITAL पटपडगूंज ले गये। आज मेरा स्कूल मे BUSINESS STUDIES का पे पर था दजसको मे इस झगडे के कारण नही दे सका हूँ आपने मेरा ब्यान मेरे पापा श्री राजपाल चौहान के सामने दजष दकया दजसको मेरे पापा ने पढा और समझा दजसको मैने भी पढा और समझ दलया ठीक है कानू नी कायषवाही की जाये । ब्यान सु न दलया ठीक है । SD ENGLISH ATTESTED HC NARENDER KAUSHIK NO. 521/E PIS NO. 28880478 PS JAGATPURI DELHI
2. In wake of the aforesaid FIR, the appellant herein sought multifaceted information in order to prove his innocence and false implication in the case. As evidenced by the various queries made by the appellant, the focus of his query is proving his innocence through securing the Call Detail Record (CDR).
3. Both the parties are present and heard. The appellant presses a plea of alibi at the time of the alleged occurrence of incident mentioned in the FIR. He states that he was present at a far off location at the time indicated in the FIR and since he was talking to his mother on phone at that time, a detailed CDR with tower location report can very well establish his innocence in the case. He states that CDR of the complainant was also procured and the tower location report demolishes the accusations made against him by the complainant. It is his contention that the Police procured all material CDR but since the same is against the prosecution case, the same has been suppressed and not mentioned in the final report.
4. Upon a query, both parties state that the CDRs sought by the appellant are not the part of final report. The appellant states that IO suppresses the CDRs since the same would have demolished the FIR.
5. In the considered opinion of the Commission, since the CDRs sought are not part of the final report/charge sheet under 173 CRPC, the Commission finds it difficult to accede to the request of the appellant. The Investigation team/ I.O. may gather lot of material in course of investigation but omit to include some part thereof which is not germane to the core issue. Needless to say that the investigating authority cannot be saddled with the responsibility to provide all the documents collated in the course of investigation of a case. Suffice is to say that all the documents through which a case against the appellant is being established by the Investigating Agency must be furnished to the accused. However, an accuse may be requiring various documents for proving his innocence, as per the scheme of Code of Criminal procedure, he has a statutory right to secure all material of his defence through process of court and the court is duty bound to accord him a fair chance of proving his innocence. However, omitting to include any material evidence, irrespective of it being in favour or against the prosecution case; is a disservice to the cause of investigation. Though the CDRs of other persons/ third party may not be disclosed but the documents regarding request of CDR made by I.O., copies of inward register etc can be furnished to the appellant. It shall always be open to the appellant to secure CDRs through the process of court.
6. The PIO is directed to furnish complete information about the request of procurement of CDR, copy of inward register entry, movement etc. but not the CDR itself. Complete information shall be furnished to the appellant within 2 weeks. The appeals are allowed in aforesaid terms.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner 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 Copy to:-