Central Information Commission
Haripal vs Delhi Police on 28 April, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision Nos. CIC/SB/A/2016/000564
CIC/SB/A/2016/000565
CIC/SB/A/2016/000567
Dated 19.04.2017
Appellant : Shri Haripal,
House No. 553, Village Kanjhawala,
Delhi - 110081
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Delhi Police, O/o the ADCP/PIO, Rohini
District, Sector - 23, PS Begumpur, Ist
Floor, Rohini, Delhi 110 086
Date of Hearing : 19.04.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application : 03.02.2016, 02.01.2016 and 30.12.2015
CPIO Reply : 03.03.2016, 03.02.2016 and 29.01.2016
First appeal : 09.03.2016, 19.02.2016
FAA's order : 18.03.2016
Second Appeal : 21.03.2016
ORDER
1. The appellant filed three similar second appeals in case Nos. CIC/SB/A/2016/000564, 000565 and 000567 with respect to three similar applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) dated CIC/SB/A/2016/000564, CIC/SB/A/2016/000565, CIC/SB/A/2016/000567 Page 1 03.02.2016, 30.12.2015 and 02.01.2016 respectively. All these second appeals are being clubbed together and disposed of by this Order.
2. The appellant filed three similar applications under the RTI Act before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Delhi Police, Public Information Officer (PIO), Outer District, Delhi Police seeking information on behalf of his father, Shri Ramesh Chander. The information pertains to the First Information Report (FIR) No. 120/2002 dated 27.04.2002, lodged in Police Station Bawana, North West Delhi, including, inter alia, (i) the copy of the record in the Case Diary Register, in respect of said FIR, as maintained by the police officials, (ii) complete Roznamcha Register of Police Station Bawana from 27.04.2002 starting 13:00 hours to the midnight of 30.05.2002.
2. The appellant filed second appeals before the Commission on the grounds that the information sought was wrongly denied by the CPIO by invoking Section 172 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and also by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) who claimed exemption under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act and Section 172 (3) of the CrPC. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the disclosure of the information sought and unveil the malicious intention of the erring officials in withholding the desired information and acting in contravention of the established legal principles.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Shri Haripal and the respondents, Shri Mahesh Pal, Inspector, Shri K. P. Singh, Sub- Inspector and Shri D. K. Sharma, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that he is seeking information on behalf of Shri Ramesh Chander, his father with his prior authorization. The appellant admitted that he was allowed inspection of the records relating to his RTI CIC/SB/A/2016/000564, CIC/SB/A/2016/000565, CIC/SB/A/2016/000567 Page 2 application. However, the records, identified as relevant after inspection, were not furnished to him. The appellant further stated that he had sought a copy of the Case Diary Register with respect to the FIR No. 120/2002 on behalf of his father. However, this information has been erroneously denied by the FAA vide Order dated 18.03.2016 on the grounds that the investigation in this matter has not reached its finality and hence, information cannot be provided under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act and Section 172 (3) of the CrPC. The appellant also stated that exemption under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act has been wrongly invoked as the investigation has been completed and the case has been disposed of by the Order dated 15.09.2009 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), North/West, Rohini District Court. In view of this, the respondent has wrongly claimed exemption under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. In order to substantiate his claim, the appellant submitted a copy of the Custody Certificate dated 13.10.2009, of his father issued by the Office of the Superintendent: District Jail Rohini, Delhi. The appellant further submitted that the High Court of Delhi in W. P. (C) No. 3114/2007-Bhagat Singh v. Central Information Commission, has held that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of information. The respondent has to show how the disclosure of information would hamper the process of investigation.
5. The respondent submitted that vide letters dated 03.03.2016, 03.02.2016 and 29.01.2016, information, as available on records, was furnished to the appellant. For the remaining unanswered queries, the respondent stated that since the information sought by the appellant was voluminous in nature and collating it would have disproportionately diverted the resources of the respondent organization, the appellant was asked to inspect the documents/ records pertaining to his RTI application. The respondent further submitted that inspection of the relevant records has already been allowed to the appellant. The respondent submitted that the copies of the documents requested were not provided, since the information sought was exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act and Section 172 (3) of the CrPC.
CIC/SB/A/2016/000564, CIC/SB/A/2016/000565, CIC/SB/A/2016/000567 Page 3 Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, notes that the documents requested by the appellant on behalf of his father had been denied on the grounds that the investigation in the matter had not been completed, and in view of Section 172 (3) of the CrPC, which reads as:-
"Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the Court; ...."
The Commission observes that the FIR No. 120/2002 had been disposed of by the ASJ, North West, Rohini District Court vide order dated 15.09.2009. Hence, the provision of Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act is not applicable in this case. The Commission also observes that the Delhi High Court in W. P. (C) No. 12428 of 2009 dated 15.12.2012 had held "the right of an applicant to seek such information pertaining to his own criminal case, after the conclusion of the trial, by taking recourse of the RTI act, cannot be said to be barred by any provision of the CrPC.". In view of the above, the Commission observes that the documents were wrongly withheld. The Commission notes that the FIR no. 120/2002 was against Shri Ramesh Chander, S/o Shri Swaroop Singh. However, the information has been sought not by Shri Ramesh Chander, the accused in the case but by his son, Shri Haripal, the appellant in the present matter. The Commission also observes that the documents were wrongly withheld. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to provide a copy of the Case Diary pertaining to FIR No. 120/2002 dated 27.04.2002, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a request by Shri Ramesh Chander. The Commission further directs the CPIO, Police Station Bawana to allow Shri Ramesh Chander to inspect the relevant records relating to his RTI application and also to allow him to take photo copies of the requisite documents, after severing any information which is not disclosable under CIC/SB/A/2016/000564, CIC/SB/A/2016/000565, CIC/SB/A/2016/000567 Page 4 the RTI Act, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
7. With the above observations, the appeals are disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer CIC/SB/A/2016/000564, CIC/SB/A/2016/000565, CIC/SB/A/2016/000567 Page 5