Central Information Commission
Mohd Mazahar Khan vs Delhi Police on 24 August, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067
F. No.CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/171572
F. No.CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/171574
Date of Hearing : 20.08.2018
Date of Decision : 20.08.2018
Complainant/Complainant : Mohd. Mazhar Khan
Respondent : PIO
O/o the Addl. Dy. Commissioner of
Police, Central District
Through: Inspector- Vijay Kumar,
SI-Amit and ASI-Habib Ahmed
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.02.2017 & 28.02.2017
PIO replied on : 13.02.2017 & 28.03.2017
First Appeal filed on : 22.03.2017 & 29.03.2017
First Appellate Order on : 20.04.2017
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 16.11.2017 & 12.10.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/171572 Vide RTI application dated 16.02.2017, the appellant sought information regarding two FIRs registered with respect of property files bearing nos. VI 2625, VI 2645 situated in Bazar Balli Maran Delhi-06 and VI 2642-47 on 28.04.2011. In this regard the appellant sought numbers of both the FIR, name of the informants, investigation report; action taken on both files and other related information. PIO, Central District vide letter dated 11.03.2017 replied as under:-
"1 to 4 - A case FIR no. 117/03 dated 19.04.2003 u/s 409 IPC PS IP Estate was registered on the complaint of Sh. Mahendra Kumar Govt. of NCT of Delhi Land & Building Department, Vikas Bhawan, Delhi in PS IP Estate and the accused were acquitted on in the said case on 27.04.2015."
Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal. FAA/Dy. Commissioner of Police, Central District vide letter dated 20.01.2017 remitted the case back to the PIO/Central District with the direction to provide proper information on point no. 2 of his RTI appeal permissible under RTI Act 2005 within 15 days. In compliance of FAO, the PIO, Central District, Delhi vide letter dated 27.04.2017 furnished reply as under:-
2. As per report of ACP Kamla Market, no such FIR has been registered on dated 28.04.2011 in PS I.P. Estate as mentioned in your RTI application.
Still aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties were present during the hearing and reiterated their respective contentions from the records submitted so far before the Commission. The Respondent has placed on record their written synopsis of averments during the hearing which is a reiteration of the facts as noted above.
Decision:
Considering the averments of the parties and upon perusal of records of the case, the Commission notes that while the Respondent has furnished response to the appellant about both the FIRs, a detailed Report with respect to FIR no. 117/03 dated 19.04.2003 and the events which led to the acquittals in the said case shall be provided to appellant to gain better understanding of the outcome of the FIR about the theft of the property files. This report shall be provided to the appellant within four weeks of receipt of this order and compliance of these directions shall be submitted by the Respondents by or within 10.09.2018.
CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/171574 Vide RTI application dated 28.02.2017, the appellant sought statement of three workers i.e. Mohd. Salman, Mohd. Ibrahim and Shahruk Sohail. PIO, Central District, Delhi vide letter dated 28.03.2017 furnished information as under:-
"Statement of Mohd. Salam, Mohd. Ibrahim and Mohd. Sharukh can not be provided to you under the provision of section 8 (1)(g)&(j) of RTI Act 2005 as statement of an individual is something which is given in confidence for law enforcement authority and personal information, disclosure of which does not seem to have any public interest." Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal and same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are repent during hearing and the deliberations between parties reveal that the appellant had complained about three persons alongwith one Mohd. Tanvir entered his premises on 21.02.2017and threatened him and his workers to vacate the premises. It is the case of the appellant that some of his neighbours who have been his tenants for long, are now trying to forcefully evict him from his portion of the property number 2625 situated in Bazar Balli Maran Delhi-06. However, at the behest another of one of his rivals viz. Moinuddin, who according to the appellant has criminal records, neither FIR was registered nor any steps were taken by the police in respect of this criminal trespass and intimidation to the appellant and his workers. The appellant has sought copies of the statements of his workers viz. Mohd. Salam, Mohd. Ibrahim and Mohd. Sharukh which were recorded by the police in this case. The Respondents on the other hand have submitted a written synopsis stating that on the complaint of the appellant, statements of his three workers had been recorded, wherein they had denied being threatened or harassed or that any such ever dispute arose, contrary to the complaint of the appellant. In view of the contradiction of their statements from the appellant's allegations, who is the employer of the three workers, they had requested the police officials not to divulge copies of their statements to the appellant, for fear of losing their employment.
Decision:
Upon careful consideration of the facts of the case, the Commission is not satisfied with the response of the Respondent. Upon receipt of the appellant's complaint about criminal trespass and intimidation, it was expected that the statements from the appellant and the alleged perpetrator of the offence viz. Mohd. Tanvir and his two accomplices should have been recorded and the case investigated by the police. Instead the statements of the workers have been made the fulcrum of the entire investigation.
The Commission hereby directs the respondent PIO to investigate into the complaint of the appellant about the threat and criminal intimidation and a Complete Action Taken Report comprising of the outcome of the investigation shall be provided to the appellant within four weeks of the receipt of this order. A copy of the same Report shall also be submitted before the Commission by or within 15.09.2018, failing which appropriate action for non compliance shall ensue against the Respondent PIO.
The appeals are thus disposed of.
(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