Central Information Commission
Shri S. P. Sharma vs Dy. Commissioner Of Police (West) on 19 February, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01448 dated 22.11.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri S. P. Sharma
Respondent - Dy. Commissioner of Police (West)
Facts:
By an application of 9.7.07 Shri S.P. Sharma of Shastri Nagar, Delhi applied to the DCP (West) seeking the following information:
"A. On 12.7.2005 at about 11 AM a complaint was made at Police Central Room No. 100 by my nephew, Pankaj Sharma regarding a quarrel with 3-4 ladies at Shop No. 26 South Patel Nagar Mkt near Vivek Cinema. On this complaint a PCR van come and thereafter an ASI from Ranjit Nagar Police Post. An entry No. 7 was made in the Register.
Information/ document required on the above.
a) Text of the complaint to Police Control Room.
b) Name of the IO deputed on this Cell from Ranjit Nagar PP.
c) Photocopy of the Action Report of the IO on this Cell.
d) Whether any written complaint was received in this regard.
e) Final result of this complaint.
.
B. On 14.7.2005 an MLC being No 89315/05 was made in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi for one Sonu-21F through Ranjit Nagar Police Post.
Information/documents required on the above
a) Photocopy of the MLC No. 89315/05.
b) Photocopy of the written complaint on the basis at which the MLC was done along with Name and Address of the complainant.
c) DD No. and FIR No. of this complaint and its photocopy.
d) Name of the IO deputed to handle this complaint.
e) Photocopy of the Action Report of the IO.
f) Final outcome/ result of the complaint."
To this he received a response from PIO Shri Robin Hibu, DCP(West) providing him the information, as follows:
1"(A) a) that your request for providing copy DD No. 7 dated 12.7.05 has been considered favourably you can collect the same Room No. 313 3rd floor after depositing Rs. 2/- each.
b) ASI Kundan Lal was the IO of the case.
c) That the request for providing copy of DD No. 20
dated 12.7.05 PP New Ranjit Nagar has been considered favourably. You can collect the same Room No. 313 3rd Floor after depositing Rs. 2/- each.
d) That no written complaint was given.
e) NA.
(B) As far as MLC dated 14.7.05 vide No. 89315/05 prepared
from RML Hospital is concerned efforts are being made with the Hospital authority for providing of copy of MLC, but the same is still awaited.
Rest of the reply from (a) to (f) shall be given after obtaining copy of MLC from the Hospital authority.
It is, therefore, requested that if, you have any query/ dissatisfaction under the RTIA-2005, you are also invited to meet personally with the undersigned on any working day from Monday to Friday in between 4 PM to 5 PM to seek further clarification."
This was followed by a second request of 14.8.07 from Shri S.P.Sharma, also addressed to DCP(West), in which he has sought the following:
"On 14.7.2005 MLC No. 89315/05 was made in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital New Delh8 for one SONU-21F through Ranjeet Nagar, Police Post.
Information required on the above:-
a) Photocopy of the MLC No. 89315/05. b) Photocopy of the written complaint on the basis at which the
MLC was done along with Name and Address of the complainant.
c) DD No. and FIR No. of this complaint and its photocopy.
d) Name of the IO deputed to handle this complaint
e) Photocopy of the Action Report of the IO.
f) Final outcome/ result of the complaint."
To this the response was provided on 13.9.07 by Shri Robin Hibu, DCP Finding the information received contradictory, Shri S.P. Sharma moved a first appeal on 1.10.07 stating that by "letter No. 3399 (416)/1077/DIL/West dated 2 13.9.2007 incorrect reply contradictory to their earlier reply on the same query has been given." He has in addition asked for some further information with regard to MLC No. 89315/05. Upon this Shri Rajesh Kumar, Appellate Authority & JCP (Southern Range) has ruled as follows:
"The PIO (DCP)/WD has provided information to the appellant on his all queries. With regards point (a) regarding provide of coy of MLC, the appellant has been informed that the custodian of the record of MLC is concerned Hospital, hence, the same may be had at his own.
The undersigned have noticed that the requested information/ document are related to case FIR No. 410/2005 u/s 376/506 IPC PS Patel Nagar which is pending trial in the court and in any case the matter is already before the Court and a prosecution proceeding is in progress and hence it attracts the exemption under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI act, 2005. There is no disclosure requirement for such queries.
The appeal is, therefore, disallowed."
Appellant's prayer before us in his second appeal is, as below:
"I shall, therefore, be grateful if you kindly arrange to supply the following information/ documents as under:-
a) Photocopy of the MLC No. 89315/05 of RML Hospital.
b) Name of the officer who was contacted by the Hospital authorities as per practice of the hospital while doing MLC.
c) Name of the officer who collected the copy of the MLC from the hospital and the name of the Police Station.
Police Chowki to which he was associated.
d) Photocopy of the complaint on the basis of which the MLC No. 89315/05 was done along with name and address of the complainant.
e) DD No. and/ or FIR No. if any of the above said complaint on which MLC No. 89315/05 was done.
f) Name of the IO deputed to handle the said complaint on which MLC No. 89315/05 was done.
3g) Photocopy of the Action Report of the IO on the above said complaint.
h) Final outcome/ report of the above said complaint."
The appeal was heard on 19.2.09. The following are present:
Respondents Shri Jagdev Singh, ACP HQ/ West Distt.
Shri Arunendra Singh, Insp. / DIC Appellant Sh. S.P. Sharma had been informed by Notice dated 20.1.2009 regarding the hearing but he has opted not to be present. Shri Arunendra Singh, Inspector submitted that the information sought by Shri Sharma has been supplied to him in response to another RTI application by Shri Jaspal Singh, PIO, Central Distt. Delhi on 25.10.08. In this response Shri Jaspal Singh has held as follows:
"d) As per the available records of the police station Patel Nagar and the statement of SI Jitender Tiwari No. D- 305, IO of DD No. 44-B dated 14.7.2005, PS Patel Nagar, it is stated that, on receipt of the DD No. 44-B, IO went to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and collected the MLC of Ms. Soni Sharma.
In the Hospital, the parents of Ms. Soni were also present but the complainant did not give her statement. After that, IO went to alleged place of quarrel i.e. Flame Center, Patel Nagar, but no witness was found there to give information regarding any quarrel. DD No. 44-B was kept pending as the complainant did not give her statement. After that IO met the complainant three four times and also on 28.7.2005 but she did not give her statement to the IO and stated that she wants to get register an FIR and met SHO/Patel Nagar. As per her statement, a case vide FIR No. 410/05 u/s 376/506 IPC was registered by W/SI R. P. Minz, she was told to give her detailed statement regarding any quarrel occurred during the investigation to the IO. But she was not ready to give any statement regarding the quarrel. Since on her statement the above mentioned case has already been registered, therefore, no action was warranted on DD No. 44-B."
4Respondents submitted that this pertains directly to MLC No. 89315/05 regarding which the two applications, presently under appeal before us, have been submitted.
DECISION NOTICE The stand taken by appellate authority Shri Rajesh Kumar, JCP in his decision of 31.10.07 is invalid for the following reasons:
1. If the information sought is held by another public authority, the CPIO is expected to transfer the request u/s 6(3) sub sec. (i) or (ii). In this case the information has been out-
rightly refused and the applicant advised to proceed on his own.
2. that this application attracts the proviso of Sec.8(1) (h). Information cannot be denied simply because the matter is sub-judice unless it is established that as demanded by sec. 8(1)(h), providing information will impede the process of investigation or prosecution or apprehension of offenders. In this case none of these have been cited. In this case the judgment of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.3114/2007 - Shri Bhagat Singh Vs. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors is of relevance, since it deals with the application of sec. 8(1)(h):
Nevertheless, it now appears that the information sought by appellant Shri Sharma has in fact been provided to him by the PIO Central Distt., Delhi, in the context of another RTI application in which PIO Shri Jaspal Singh has also rested his case upon the case registered vide FIR No. 410/05 u/s 376/506 IPC. Besides, CPIO Shri Robin Hibu has, in both his responses, offered appellant Shri Sharma that if he had any query/dissatisfaction, he was invited to meet personally with the DCP and obtain the necessary information, an invitation that 5 appellant Shri Sharma has failed to avail of. Under the circumstances, no further merit lies in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 19.2.2009 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.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 19.2.2009 6