Central Information Commission
Pranvesh Kumar Jha vs Delhi Police on 26 September, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067
F. No.CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/136131
Date of Hearing : 19.09.2018
Date of Decision : 19.09.2018
Appellant/Complainant : Shri Pranvesh Kumar Jha
Respondent : PIO
Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police
North District, Civil Lines
Through:- Sh. Vijay Mann - SI
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.06.2016& 21.01.2017
PIO replied on : 08.07.2016
First Appeal filed on : 23.02.2017
First Appellate Order on : 23.03.2017
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 29.05.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 14.06.2016, the appellant sought following information:-
1. Copy of the last order/judgement against FIR-71/86 PS- Roop Nagar, U/S -160 IPC and Goswara No-53/92, against order given on 28.08.1992 by the Hon'ble Court at Tis Hazari Court.
2. Proceeding against the above mentioned FIR-71/86 and on RTI in this regard submitted to Hon'ble Court for RoopNagar at Tis Hazari
3. Status of my application submitted at PS-Roop Nagar asking copy of the above mentioned order on 16.01.2016.
Another RTI application dated 21.01.2017 was also filed by the appellant seeking information regarding Delivery Mechanism of Court Order and other related information in the form of 06 points.
In response to RTI application 14.06.2016,PIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, North District vide letter dated 08.07.2016 furnished the information as received from SHO/Roop Nagar. Further, PIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, North District informed that copy of the documents as mentioned in the reply of SHO/Roop Nagar is available in his office. If appellant needs copies of the same containing two pages, he may collect the said documents after depositing Rs. 4/- @Rs 2/- per page on any working day between 11.00 AM to 05.00.
Reply furnished by SHO/Roop Nagar as under:-
1. As per PS record, Challan of Case FIR no. 71/86 d. 06.03.86 u/s 160 IPC PS Roop Nagar has been prepared on 28.08.86 and put in Court for Trial on 06.09.86 and No final decision/judgement was received in PS Roop Nagar in this regard.
2. It does not relate to this PS.
3. As per record an application vide DD no. 32B dt - 16.01.2016 was received in PS Roop Nagar from Prenvesh Kumar Jha for entry in record register based on certified copy of Goswara register regarding FIR No. 71/86 PS Roop Nagar and handed over to MHC(R) for necessary action but the entry in the coloum of decision of FIR cannot made on the basis of Goswara register copies because of it is not a decision order copy and not any order in this regard was received in PS Roop Nagar officially but your application with the copy of Goswara register has been attached with the FIR.
In response to RTI application dated 21.01.2017 PIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I furnished information against each point to the appellant. Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal. FAA/Dy. Commissioner of Police vide letter dated 23.03.2017 observed that reply provided at query no 1 to 7 of RTI application is not appropriate. Therefore, FAA vide order dated 23.03.2017 remitted the case back to the PIO/North to provide appropriate reply to query nos. 1 to 7 as per available record and fresh status of the concerned case under RTI Act. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present during the hearing and the appellant has explained that his case arises out of an FIR No. 71/86 which was registered in 1986 in connection with an inter se dispute between two rival factions of trade union of the company Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd. - HVOC Ltd. which resulted in detention of some of the workmen from each of the faction. The management assigned appellant, who was the Factory Gate In Charge, to the task of bringing back the detained workmen. At the police station, at the insistence of the Inquiry Officer, the appellant gave a written request for release of the workmen, only to realise subsequently that a case had been registered in the name of the appellant though he had neither direct nor even indirect link with the dispute. The rival trade unions decided to arrive at settlement and compromise the matter during trial which led to the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate decide the case on merits and acquit all the accused on 20.08.1992. Since the appellant was travelling out of town on duty, during the said period he could not obtain a copy of the order. The company in question viz. HVOC Ltd was closed down in 2001 and all employees including the appellant were constrained to take Voluntary retirement. In his quest for a new private job, the appellant applied for a passport in 2002 and found out that the FIR no. 71/86 was still pending and acted as a hindrance in his obtaining of police clearance. When the appellant made endeavours to have the FIR quashed, he learnt that the records pertaining to the said case had been destroyed in weeding out process in 2003 and only the Goswara register for 1992 could be traced. The said register indicated clearly that the appellant had been acquitted in the case, but the police authorities refused to quash the FIR on the basis of Goswara register and sought copy of decision/Court order.
Respondent reiterated the same stance as is evident from the records about denial of action to quash the FIR on the basis of copy of Goswara Register.
Decision:
Having considered the facts of the case from the detailed submissions as noted above, the Commission finds that the case file related to 1986 has been weeded out in terms of retention policy. Unless the case would have attained finality by then, the file would not have been closed and weeded out. In the absence of any appeal and/or conviction arising out of the said FIR, there appears no reason to disbelief the version submitted by the appellant. The only document available relating to the said case is the Goswara Register, which indicates that the appellant had been acquitted by the Court.
The stance of the Respondent of insisting that quashing of FIR will only be done on the basis of copy of decision, is thus unattainable in the given scenario. Under these circumstances, keeping the FIR alive would mean holding the appellant guilty in perpetuity for no fault of his, and that is wholly unacceptable, particularly when there exists a public document - the Goswara register indicative of his acquittal by the Court.
In the given peculiar circumstances, the Commission hereby directs the Respondent/PIO to take appropriate action for closure of the case, on the basis of available records and submit an Action Taken Report before the Commission by or within 05.10.2018. Non-compliance proceedings will ensue upon expiry of the mandated time frame.
The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner 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.
(R.P. Grover) Designated Officer