Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Nikhil Kumar Sen vs Delhi Police on 15 April, 2019

                                  के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                            बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067



नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/119897


Nikhil Kumar Sen                                               ... अपीलकताग/Appellant


                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम


CPIO, O/o The Dy. Commissioner                             ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
of Police, Delhi Police, South East
District, New Delhi.


Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 21.01.2018             FA       : 17.02.2018          SA : 24.03.2018

CPIO : 07.02.2018            FAO : 08.03.2018               Hearing : 09.04.2019


                                      ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o Police Commissioner, South-East Dist., New Delhi, seeking information on five points pertaining to FIR No. 0628/2015 filed by him on 27.08.2014 at P.S. Hazrat Nizamuddin, including, inter-alia, (i) whether the police has added IPC sections Page 1 of 4 403, 405, 415, 418, 420, 441, etc., in the FIR, and (ii) if so, to provide an updated copy of FIR.

2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO has wrongly denied the information sought for by him under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. He contended that mere pendency of investigation process is no ground for denial of the information sought as disclosure of the same would not impede the investigation. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete and correct information, to impose penalty upon the CPIO and to take necessary action against the respondent as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for providing misleading information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant Shri Nikhil Kumar Sen and the respondent Shri Kumar Jiweshwar, Inspector/Nizamuddin, Delhi Police, Delhi were present in person.

4. The appellant submitted that the Court had directed the respondent to file FIR under relevant sections of Indian Penal Code (IPC), whereas, FIR had been filed only under Section 380 of IPC. The appellant added that he had submitted evidence which implied that cognizable offences under IPC section 403, 405, 415, 418, 420, 441, etc., had been committed. Hence, he had sought an updated copy of FIR after his examination. However, the information has been wrongly denied to him under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

5. The respondent submitted that once the FIR is registered no changes are made in it, however, during the investigation the police may add any other charges, if the investigation so reveals.

Decision:

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the respondent was unable to justify as to how the disclosure of the information sought regarding addition of charges, if any, by the police and the latest status of FIR would impede the process of investigation. The Commission notes that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 03/12/2007- WP(C) 3114/2007-Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Anr. has held as under:

"13. ......It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material......."

7. In view of the above, the Commission directs the respondent to provide correct information sought regarding whether any fresh charges have been framed/added after the initial registration of FIR and the latest status of the FIR as sought vide point nos. 2 and 4 of the RTI application to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.

8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 10.04.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:

1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) O/o Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, South East District Police, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi.

2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) O/o Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, South East District Police, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi.

3. Shri Nikhil Kumar Sen Page 4 of 4