Central Information Commission
Mr.Govind Lal Arora vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 12 November, 2010
Central Information Commission
Room No. 5, Club Building, Near Post Office
Old J.N.U. Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel No: 26161997
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2010/000434
Name of the Appellant : Shri Govind Lal Arora
(The Appellant was not Present)
Name of the Public Authority : Addl. Deputy Commissioner of police1,
North Distt., Delhi.
Represented by Shri Surjit Malik,
ACP/North & Shri Abhishek Kumar.
The matter was heard on : 12.11.2010.
ORDER
Shri Govind Lal Arora, Appellant, through his RTI application dated 30.09.2009, seeking to know from the PIO of the decision taken on his various complaints filed before the Police and grounds on which section 324 IPC was cited instead of section 326 IPC in the FIR No. 267. Shri R.K. Jha, PIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police1, North Distt., Delhi vide his letter dated 23.10.2009 has provided pointwise reply to the Appellant. Dr. Sagar Preet, Dy.Commissioner of Police/FAA before whom appeal was preferred by the Appellant, has concurred with the reply of the PIO.
In his appeal filed before the Commission, the Appellant pleads that the Respondent have not informed him of the grounds on which section 324 IPC was cited in case FIR No.262, whereas section 326 IPC was later on added on the same MLC Report on the direction of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate. He also pleads that he has not been informed of the action taken against erring police officials who cited section 324 IPC for an offence under section 326, which is very grave in nature. His other complaint is that the reply to point No.9 of the application in which he sought to know the action taken on his complaint to SHO P.S. Burari dated 25.08.2009 is false, as no inquiry was done whereas in the reply it has been stated that "after making inquiry no cognizable offence was made out."
The Respondent, on the other hand, submit that after perusal of the MLC Report, which reported simple hurt at the initial stage, section 324 was cited and it was only on the observations of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, that section 326 IPC was added. As regards the enquiry by the SHO, the Respondent submit that inquiry was conducted on 25.08.2009 by SHO P.S. Burari and it was found that no cognizable offence was made out.
After hearing the Respondent and on perusal of the relevant documents on file, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide a copy of the MLC to the Appellant on the basis which section 324 was cited with reasons thereof. As far as the inquiry conducted by SHO P.S. Burari on Appellant's complaint dated 25.8.2009 is concerned, the Commission is of the view that requisite reply as per record and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the Appellant.
With these observations/directions, the matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 12.11.2010 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2010/000434.
Authenticated true copy:
(S.Padmanabha) Under Secretary & Deputy Registrar Copy to:
. Shri Govind Lal Arora, Bhagwati Timbers, 138/3, Block A2, Gali No.10, West Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi - 110084.
2. The P.I.O, Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police,1, North Distt., Delhi - 110054.
3. The Appellate Aluthority, Deputy Commissioner of Police,1, North Distt., Delhi - 110054.