Central Information Commission
Yogesh vs Delhi Police on 13 December, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमार्ग, मुनिरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2022/651711
Shri Yogesh ... अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Outer North District, Delhi Police ...प्रतिवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.12.2023
Date of Decision : 13.12.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.07.2022
PIO replied on : 30.08.2022
First Appeal filed on : 23.08.2022
First Appellate Order on : 22.09.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 15.03.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.07.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"1. Kindly provide the all complaint copy which is filed by Urvi Gupta & her family against FIR no. 0307/2022 & 0222/2022 in SAMAYPUR BADLI POLICE STATION, OUTER NORTH DELHI.
2. Kindly provide the full charge sheet copy of FIR no. 0307/2022."
The PIO, Outer North Distt.Delhi Police vide letter dated 30.08.2022 replied as under:-
"1. Being sensitive matter, copy of complaints could not be provided to the applicant.2. The applicant is accused in the case and he can obtain the said documents from the concerned Court."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.08.2022. The FAA, Outer North Distt, Delhi Police vide order dated 22.09.2022 disposed off the appeal by stating that the information is sensitive in nature.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 1 of 4A written submission was received by the Commission from he PIO cum Addl DCP, Outer North District vide letter dated 08.12.2023, the relavant extracts of which are as under:
"On the Second appeal, a fresh report has been obtained from SHO/Samaypur Badli through ACP / Samaypur Badli, Outer North District, Delhi. As per reports, as regards Point No. 1 the complaints filed by Ms. Urvi Gupta against appellant and his family members could not be provided to the appellant under section 8(1)g of RT! Act-2005 being sensitive in nature and for security reasons. As regards Point No. 2 Chargesheet Badli was filed in Hon'ble Court in case FIR No.307 /22, P.S. Samaypur by the IO. Therefore, copy of the same could not be provided under section 8(1)h of RTI Act-2005 being pending trial. However, being accused, may obtain copy of chargesheet the appellant from the Hon'ble Court."
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: 1. Shri Yashpal, ACP
2. Shri Dipesh Malia, SI, PS SP Badli The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation.
Shri Yashpal stated that the information sought pertained to an FIR registered u/s 406/ 498A and 377 of IPC filed by a third party and pertained to a sensitive matter, hence the information requested by the Appellant were not provided.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in Youth Bar Association of India vs Union of India and Ors WP (Crl) 68/2016 decided on 07.09.2016 has provided clear guidelines in the context of uploading of each FIR registered in a Police Station on its website. The relevant extracts of the decision are as under:
"d. The copies of the FIRs, unless the offence is sensitive in nature, like sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that category, offences under POCSO Act and such other offences, should be uploaded on the police website, and if there is no such website, on the official website of the State Government, within twenty-four hours of the registration of the First Information Report so that the accused or any person connected with the same can download the FIR and file appropriate application before the Court as per law for redressal of his grievances. It may be clarified here that in case there is connectivity problems due to geographical location or there is some other Page 2 of 4 unavoidable difficulty, the time can be extended up to forty-eight hours. The said 48 hours can be extended maximum up to 72 hours and it is only relatable to connectivity problems due to geographical location.
e. The decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on the website shall not be taken by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or any person holding equivalent post. In case, the States where District Magistrate has a role, he may also assume the said authority. A decision taken by the concerned police officer or the District Magistrate shall be duly communicated to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.
f. The word 'sensitive' apart from the other aspects which may be thought of being sensitive by the competent authority as stated hereinbefore would also include concept of privacy regard being had to the nature of the FIR. The examples given with regard to the sensitive cases are absolutely illustrative and are not exhaustive.
g. If an FIR is not uploaded, needless to say, it shall not ensure per se a ground to obtain the benefit under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
h. In case a copy of the FIR is not provided on the ground of sensitive nature of the case, a person grieved by the said action, after disclosing his identity, can submit a representation to the Superintendent of Police or any person holding the equivalent post in the State. The Superintendent of Police shall constitute a committee of three officers which shall deal with the said grievance. As far as the Metropolitan cities are concerned, where Commissioner is there, if a representation is submitted to the Commissioner of Police who shall constitute a committee of three officers. The committee so constituted shall deal with the grievance within three days from the date of receipt of the representation and communicate it to the grieved person.
i. The competent authority referred to hereinabove shall constitute the committee, as directed herein-above, within eight weeks from today.
j. In cases wherein decisions have been taken not to give copies of the FIR regard being had to the sensitive nature of the case, it will be open to the accused/his authorized representative/parokar to file an application for grant of certified copy before the Court to which the FIR has been sent and the same shall be provided in quite promptitude by the concerned Court not beyond three days of the submission of the application."
As per the above mentioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, details of FIRs registered have to be disclosed online within 24 hours of its registration. However, disclosure of sensitive FIRs is only permissible if a representation is filed before the Superintendent of Police in Rural Areas and Commissioner of Police for Metropolitan Areas who shall constitute a Committee of 3 officers to decide the grievance within 3 days from the receipt of the representation. In the present instance, the Respondent claimed that the information was denied Page 3 of 4 to the Appellant since the FIR was sensitive in nature for the reasons mentioned in their oral submissions stated above. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in this matter.
The instant Second Appeal stands disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामरिया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रति) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4