Central Information Commission
Mr.Dr Sucheta Parwal vs Delhi Police on 25 June, 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/C/2012/000687
Dated: 25.06.2013
Name of Complainant : Dr. Sucheta Parwal
Name of Respondent : Delhi Police, Crime Branch
Date of Hearing : 28.05.2013
ORDER
Dr. Sucheta Parwal, hereinafter called the complainant, has filed the present complaint dated 13.6.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Delhi Police, Crime Branch for providing false and fabricated information in response to her RTI application dated 24.12.2011. The appellant was present whereas the respondent were represented by Shri Sanjay Bhatia, Addl. DCP, Shri R.K. Bajpayee, ACP, Shri Sheov Singh, ACP, Shri Zile Singh, ACP and Shri Chandra Prakash, SI.
2. The Complainant has pointed out the following discrepancy in her complaint filed before the Commission.
3. The Complainant through her RTI application dated 24.12.2011 addressed to the CPIO, PHQ sought the following information pertaining to case FIR No. 48/09 dated 18.7.2009 u/s 379 IPC: "(a) The sketch/portrait of culprits was not got prepared before sending the un-trace/closure report on 8.11.2009; (b) I was not asked to go through the dossiers of the criminals available in the concerned police station or Dossier Cell, Delhi Police, Kamla Market PS before sending the 2 Case No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000687 untrace/closure repor; (c) There have already been records available with the police of the criminals known for their involvement in railway crimes. Was any investigation/interrogation procedure followed before sending the closure report;
(d) Is it allowed under rules to file untrace/closure report of her FIR without filing the closure report of her case to Court of Ld MM, Railways, Delhi; (e) Was it not a lapse/negligence and irregularity committed by the concerned police officials for issues raised at Point a, b, c and d above; (f) Whether the IO is eligible to interrogate a criminal identified by his photographs/record in the Dossier Cell. Ca such a record really be used in investigation so as to progress to the solving of the case, after asking the complainant to identify point out the culprit from the dossiers of the criminals involved in other FIRs; (g) Whether there is any Legal Bar/restriction on the aprt of police to question such a culprit identified by complainant/witness in Dossier Cell. IN case there is no such bar, why has no requisite action been taken against the culprits identified and intimated to the concerned senior officers by the complainant; (h) Is the failure/lapse in solving a well clue-lead criminal offence as mentioned at (f) and (g) above, a deliberate negligence; (i) Is there any provision/procedure to correct such erring police officials; and (j) Is it not a lapse and deliberate act of not interrogating and arresting the culprits whom she identified by their photographs available in Dossier Cell, where Insp. Lekh Raj accompanied her, and against whom she made a request to arrest and interrogate, had not been interrogated in her case nonetheless by her identification while these culprits are attending their court proceedings in other criminal cases". The CPIO, PHQ vide letter dated 24.12.2011 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, Delhi Police, Crime Branch. The CPIO/Crime Branch by way of reply enclosed a copy of the report provided by Addl./DCP, Railways, vide his letter No. 2824/2012/282/PIO/Crime dated 16.1.2012 which is as follows: "(a) As per FIR, the incident occurred on 12.6.2009 and the case was registered as on 18.7.09 on the complaint of the complainant. The complainant at first was not interested to lodge an FIR , it has been mentioned in the complaint and nothing about identification of culprit has been mentioned in the complaint; (b) As above due to non interest of the 3 Case No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000687 complainant; (c) The concerned IO conducted investigation as per procedure; (d) Yes, the untrace/closure report is sent to the Court concerned for finalization; (e) Not applicable due to non interest of the complainant; (f) Dossiers can be helpful;
(g) The case is pending investigation and two accused persons have been formally arrested in this case. The investigation is still continued and is in progress; (h) No as the answer is as 'g'; (i) It is the matter of disciplinary authority; (j) No it depends on circumstances".
4. The FAA, before whom the complainant filed first appeal, vide his order No. 1920/2012/79-80/RT/Appeal/Crime dated 13.3.2012 decided the appeal and held that there is no ambiguity found in the information provided by the CPIO/Crime and that his decision need not be interfered with.
5. The complainant during the hearing states that in reply to Point No. (a) &
(b) of the RTI application the CPIO, instead of answering the questions, is making counter claims which is false. The CPIO has also not provided information on Point No. (c) in which the appellant had explicitly asked what investigation procedure had been followed. The CPIO has simply replied that the IO investigated the case according to procedure without either affirming or explaining the procedure. The reply to question (d) is incorrect. Answer (f) and
(g) are misleading.
6. The respondent on the other hand submit that there have been lapses in the investigation in the initial stage for which disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the initial Investigating Officer. However, the respondent maintain, the RTI application has been properly replied to.
7. Having considered the submissions of the parties and perused the relevant documents on file, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to provide a more detailed reply to the query at (d) and to provide complete information to the query raised at Point No. (e) of the RTI application, free of cost, to the 4 Case No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000687 complainant within two weeks of receipt of this order. The remaining questions are in the nature of seeking explanations, clarifications, opinion, which do not fall within the ambit of the definition of 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. However, the CPIO will also apprise the complainant of the disciplinary proceedings initiated by them against the initial I.O. and the action taken by the respondent to investigate the case afresh, within two weeks of receipt of this order.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
Dr. Sucheta Parwal, E-4, GTB Hospital Campus, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.
Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police & CPIO, Delhi Police, Crime Branch, New Delhi Railway Station, New Delhi.
Dy. Commissioner of Police & FAA, Delhi Police, Crime Branch, 10th Floor, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.