Central Information Commission
Shri S. K. Kapoor vs Deputy Commissioner Police, (Dcp) ... on 8 May, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/001523 dated 20-12-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri S. K. Kapoor
Respondent: Deputy Commissioner Police, (DCP) Central
FACTS
By an application of 6-8-07 Shri S.K. Kapoor of Rajouri Garden, New Delhi moved for the following information before P.S. Darya Ganj:
"(i) Diary No. of the enclosed letter of complaint to PS Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi complaint dated 19.9.2004 by the Raj Kumar Meghani along with.
(ii) Name of the person who has received the letter whether NCR/ FIR was registered against the said complaint if yes, provide in the copy of the same."
To this he received a response from Shri Alok Kumar, PIO, Central District, Delhi, as follows:-
"INFORAMTION SOUGHT:-
3. (b) i. Dairy no. of the enclosed letter of complaint to PS Rajender Nagar, New Delhi complaint dated 19.9.2004 by the Raj Kumar Meghani along with the name of the person who has received the letter.
REPLY:-
No record available with the concerned office in this regard.
INFORMATION SOUGHT:-
ii.Whether NCR/ FIR was registered against the said complaint if yes provide the copy of the same.
REPLY:-
No NCR was issued against the Complaint."
Not satisfied, however, Shri S.K. Kapoor moved his first appeal submitting as follows:
"I am sorry to state that the said information is no information at all & is deficient, incomplete and confusing."
After hearing both the parties Shri P.R. Meena, JCP, Northern Range, Delhi remanded the matter to the PIO, Central District as follows:
"The appellant has contended that he has not been provided complete and appropriate information by PIO/ Central Distt under Right to Information Act. The appeal is remitted back to 1 PIO/ Central Distt with the directions to enquire into the matter afresh and the appellant be provided information, in seriatim, permissible under Right to Information Act, 2005."
In compliance Shri Alok Kumar in his letter of 17-10-07 further clarified the position as follows:
"i. It is submitted that a complaint was received on 19.9.04 at PS Rajender Nagar from Raj Kumar Meghani, but the signature of the person who received it, could not be deciphered/ identified. In signature the same shown as 'RAJESH' but Constable Rajesh No. 1764/C,1348/C(Now 1045/W) who was posted at PS Rajender Nagar on that day (as sentry duty, as per duty roster), denied this and said that he had not received and such complaint. D.O. W/HC Renu Bala No. 448/C now 562/W and reader to SHO Rajender Nagar, constable Kumargi N. 1762/C now 1722/Security both have also denied and said that they had not received such complaint.
ii. the rubber stamp dispatched on application dated 19.9.2004 is matched with the stamp of PS Rajender Nagar.
iii. No, NCR has been issued in the name of Raj Kumar Meghani on 19.9.04 from PS Rajender Nagar."
We find that a subsequent hearing was held on the same issue on 25- 6-08, on the basis of which the following information was provided to the appellant on 2-7-08:
"2. On receipt of the complaint dated 14.12.2007 an enquiry was conducted through SHO/ Rajinder Nagar. On enquiry no cognizable offence was made out in the jurisdiction of P. S. Rajinder Nagar. Statement of Shri Rajkumar Meghani has recorded on 15.4.2008 in this regard and the same is enclosed herewith.
3. A complaint case u/s 156(3) was already pending in the Hon'ble Court on the same matter and the directions of the court if any shall be complied with.
4. The alleged forged document has been used at PS R. K. Puram for getting the FIR lodged. As per provision of law the offence of forgery is made out at a place where the alleged forged document is used."2
Shri S.K. Kapoor had then made a representation to this Commission on 8-7-08 accusing the Police of colluding with Shri Raj Kumar Meghani as follows:
"They have also committed a fraud with the police station, Rajinder Nagar, and used the said document in the jurisdiction of P. S. R. K. Puram and the said fact is duly confirmed by Shri Alok Kumar, IPS Public Information Officer on dated 2.7.2008, vide ref No. 1890. The copy of the said letter is enclosed for your kind perusal."
Shri S.K. Kapoor, therefore, pleaded that this matter be heard by us together with his pending appeals on which it has a direct bearing. The appeal was heard on 8-5-2009. The following are present.
Appellants Shri S. K. Kapoor.
Shri Rajan Khanna.
Respondents Ms. I. B. Rani, Addl. DCP/ Central.
Shri Jagdish Parsad, SHO/ Rajinder Nagar. SI Devender Singh, Sub Inspector.
It was confirmed by appellant Shri S.K. Kapoor that his basic grievance is that of what he perceived as a fraud by the Police of Central District, Delhi. Ms. I.B. Rani, Addl. DCP (Central) submitted that this is a matter of dispute between the appellant Shri S.K. Kapoor and Shri R.K. Meghani in which case the entire matter is already before the court. The court has in itself ordered the production of certain documents which the police are at pains to provide. There is no information that has been withheld from the appellant Shri S.K. Kapoor.
DECISION NOTICE What appellant Shri S.K. Kapur is pleading before us, in fact, amounts to redress of a grievance in what he perceives as a criminal act of which he is victim. The gist of his submissions is that the information that he has been provided with reveals as much. If as contended the information that appellant Shri S.K. Kapoor has received has disclosed a fraud, the function of the RTI Act has indeed fructified. It is not for this Commission to order redress or 3 indeed to initiate criminal proceedings against any party, which is clearly within the jurisdiction of a court of criminal law. Appellant Shri S.K. Kapur is advised that on the basis of the information obtained under the RTI Act and the contradiction that appears to have become apparent in the disposal of his complaint, he may initiate/pursue criminal action against the party that he is accusing of fraud. But because the plea of appellant raises an issue that is outside the jurisdiction of this Commission, this appeal is dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 8-5-2009 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 K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 8-5-2009 4