CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00299 dated 26-2-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19
Complainant: Smt. Shama Praveen
Respondent: Delhi Police.
FACTSBy an application of 13-11-2006 Mrs. Shama Praveen of Julahan Street, Bijnore applied to the DCP (West) and PIO, New Delhi regarding a complaint of 25-7-06 filed by her brother Shri Zafaryab Ahmed against the Investigating Officer (IO) in a case in Uttam Nagar, District West as follows:
“a) Provide certified copy of enquiry/ investigation report of aforementioned complaint.
b) Provide certified copy of action taken report in case of deliberately furnishing incorrect information under RTI Act’ 2005 that is that FIR No. 712/2000 was registered under 156(3)
Cr. P. C. Whereas it is an admitted position that FIR was registered by6 officials of P.S. Uttam Nagar and there is nothing to show that FIR was registered on the direction of court under 156(3) Cr. P. C. (RE: Appeal No. (6) RTIA/06 (WD)/3779/SO/SR, dated 28.6.2006).
c) What action has been taken against the HC, IO and other police officials for misusing official position deliberately filling charge sheet and for extracting R. 6000/-? Whether scientific tests as requested by us have been used to ascertain the truth.
d) Provide certified copies of incoming and out going phone call records of the phone numbers furnished by us vide previous communications and request was made for their call log print out vide aforementioned complaint so as to confirm nexus between police officials and plotters (Accused in my dowry case). If call records has not been taken to ascertain the truth what other methods has been used to ascertain the truth.
e) If enquiry/investigation/action on the matters referred in Para a), b), C) & d) has not been conducted/ taken reasons for the same may be spelt out. If no action has been taken, what is the policy of Delhi Police in dealing with complaints against its officials who misuse their official position for unlawful gain and implicate the innocent citizens in false and frivolous cases and drag them before the courts so as to harass and humiliate them at the instance of rival party who were already accused in dowry case.
f) Provide complete information, procedure, policies, norms and grounds for using scientific methods in investigation/enquiry in the day to day functioning in case I) offenses offended by citizens and ii) when the complaint is related to corruption, misuse of official position and the violation of human rights by the officials of Delhi Police.
g) Provide copy of the compromise letter and or basis/documents on the grounds of which police have been claiming that parties have compromised and that could have legitimately led to a decision not to initiate any action against the police officials for abusing his official position and derelictions of duties.
h) Provide certified copies of entire records including notings made by concerned persons who have dealt the case and material submitted by us and other concerned parties during the pendency of the said complaint.
i) Information/procedure for filing a complaint with international agencies like “UNHRC” Amnesty International etc. I request to either provide the required information or transfer this application to concerned department/ organization, which can provide me with the required information.”
To this she received a reply on 1-12-06 from Shri Robin Hibu, CPIO & DCP (West) as follows:
“a) Your request of providing of certified copy of enquiry/investigation report conducted on the complaint dated 25.7.06 of Shri Zafaryab Ahmed, has been considered in this office, but could not be acceded to as this is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1) (e) & (g) of the “Right to Information Act, 2005”.
b) A case vide FIR No. 712/2000 u/s 324/34 IPC registered/investigated at P.S. Uttam Nagar, as regard to action u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C. It is pertinent to mention here what a complaint of Sh. Zafaryab Ahmed was received at O. S. Uttam Nagar which was already moved by him in the Hon’ble Court of Bijnour (UP) u/s 156(3) Cr. P. C. alleging therein that he and his family members has been defamed and cheated by Smt. Keshar Jahan @ Neha and others and this complaint pertain to FIR No. 1094-C/2000 registered at P. S. Kotwali (UP). On receipt of this report at P. S. Uttam Nagar, the legal opinion was sought from prosecution Branch and no action was suggested to be taken in this matter at P. S. Uttam Nagar. Hence the case file of this matter has been returned back to P. S. Kotwali Bijnour (UP) thought S. S. P. Bijnour (UP) vide, this office letter No. 13632/ SO/W dated 6.8.2003 for further investigation and furnishing his report to concerned CJM.
c) Inquiry has been conducted and nothing found wrong against the I. O. and other officials.
d) The matter relates to year 2000 and nothing can be done. Moreover, the judiciary has disposed of the same.
e) Proper enquiry was conducted into the complaint made against the I. O. and nothing found wrong.
f) The scientific methods are adopted by the Delhi Police as per the requirement and circumstances of the case. But in this case no such circumstances found to adopt the same.
g) The certified copy of judgment may be had from the concerned court.
h) Your request of providing of certified copies of entire records including noting during enquiry, has been considered in this office, but could not be acceded to as the same is exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (e) & (g) of the “Right to Information Act, 2005”.
i) The same by had from the concerned office of UNHRC etc.”
Not satisfied with this response Mrs. Shama Praveen moved her first appeal before Jt. Commissioner (Police) Southern Range, Delhi Police (Hq.). The principal thrust of which was as follows:
“a) Enquiry/ investigation report has been sought regarding complaint and clinching material filed before your good self vide our complaint dated 25.7.2006. We are keen to know outcome of this enquiry/investigation undertaken on the input furnished by us. However the PIO did not provide the same without giving any justification or grounds as to how disclosure of information is exempted u/s 8 (1) (e) and (g).
b) Information provided in response to this point is not corresponding to the information sought. Hence I appeal to kindly provide correct information whether FIR No. 712/2000 was registered under 156 (3) Cr. P.C. If yes, provide proof of the same. If no what action has been taken for providing us incorrect information under RTIA vide Appeal No. (6) RTIA/06 (WD)/3779/SO/SR, dated 28.6.2006.”
The appeal was heard by Shri Rajesh Kumar, Appellate Authority and decision given on 23-1-07, in which he has held as follows:
On careful consideration, I find that point wise / parawise reply has been sent to her by the PIO/WD in response to her application dated 13.11.06 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It appears
that the appellant is dissatisfied with the action taken by the police into the matter. Here it is important to mention that under the Right to Information Act, 2005, a citizen has the right to know the status of an issue. The appellant cannot claim that the issue should be decided or should have been decided in a particular manner. If the appellant is not satisfied with person aggrieved by police action can move accordingly. As such there has been no denial of the Right of the appellant under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
However, PIO/WD is directed to give to the appellant a copy of the enquiry report prepared on the complaint dated 25.7.06 filed by his brother Sh. Zafaryab Ahmed, after suitably deleting from it any
names or specific details etc which will expose any person to avoidable risk (reference Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005).”
On no action being taken on this Order Mrs. Shama Praveen moved her second appeal before us with the following prayer:
“(i) Direct the PIO and AA, to provide the entire information as requested vide RTI Application
(ii) Direct the respondents to provide all information free of cost considering my BPL status.
(iii) Grant Rupees One- Lakh (Rs. 1,00,000) compensation for deliberately refusing
information/documents because of non-supply of which is leading of face avoidable trials in different court in Delhi, made to rush Delhi and appellant family has been compelled to file SLP, in Hon’ble Supreme Court and thus causing serious emotional harm, social, financialand mental harassment & torture to entire family.
(iv) Impose penalties for adopting dilatory tactics, exhibiting irresponsible attitude and deliberately failing to act as per mandate of the RTI Act and thus ‘frustrated’ the objective of the RTI Act, 2005.
(v) Direct the Commissioner of Police, Delhi/appropriate authority to do the needful to ensure that no further harassment is caused to the appellant family for seeking this Hon’ble Commission’s intervention in the matter.
(vi) Grant Cost of this appeal as prescribed under sub section 8 (b) of Section 19 of the RTI Act. RTIA 2005 as RTIA 2005 was enacted for bringing transparency and accountability in public life. Denial of information on whimsical grounds has defeated the objective of RTIA, 2005.”
The appeal was heard on 24-9-2007 through video-conferencing. The following are present at the NIC Studio, New Delhi.
Respondents:
Shri Jagdev Singh, APIO
Shri Rajinder Singh, O/o DIG/W
Shri Parmaditya, ACP/ TN
Although, informed of the date and place of hearing because the appellant was absent we assumed that she had opted not to be present at the NIC Studio, Bijnore.
Respondents explained that they have, in fact, treated appellant as BPL (Below Poverty Line) and it is by error that she had been asked to deposit Rs. 2/. The information directed by the appellate authority to be sent to her is ready but appellant has not appeared to collect it.
INTERIM DECISION:
The CPIO is directed to dispatch the information stated to have been prepared on the basis of order of 1st Appellate Authority to appellant Mrs. Shama Praveen within one week of date of this decision notice under intimation to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Jt. Registrar, Central Information Commission.
We also find that information regarding points (a) (d) (g) (h) (i) has not been given. The CPIO Shri Robin Hibu DC (West) will, therefore, provide such information as is held by him or transfer the request to the appropriate authority u/s 6 (3) (i) and (ii) within 5 days of date of issue of this notice. This should have been done at the time of the receipt of the application.
As will be noted PIO has pleaded Section 8 (1) (e) and (g). Whereas recourse to Sec 8 (1) (g) has been upheld by Appellate Authority since this is a case of criminal proceedings from both sides, the issue of fiduciary relationship u/s 8 (1) (e) does not arise in a matter concerning registration of police cases.
The above decision was announced in the hearing. However, subsequent to the decision being announced we have received a telephone call from Bijnour from the father of complainant that although she had received the notice of hearing, the contact officer Mr. R.K. Goyal misled her. As per their fax message received at 5.17 pm on 24.9.’07 appellant Ms Shama Parveen has stated that they phoned Mr. Goyal at 12.30 p.m. who told the appellant to come to the Centre where he will meet them, but when the appellant reached the premises with her father at 1.10 p.m. Mr. Goyal had left for Vikas Bhavan, Bijnore. Due to which they could not appear for hearing.
We also find that during the hearing no officer of the NIC was in fact present. The attendant present at the Centre stated that they had been called away for a meeting. This leads to the arising of a doubt that, taken in the context of the appeal alleging dowry harassment, of the possibility of malafide intention in preventing the appellant Ms. Shama Praveen from appearing before us. Whereas CPIO will comply with the directions given the hearing as noted I the Interim Decision above, for the reasons described a Post Decisional Hearing will now be held on 26th October 2007 at 1.30 p.m. through videoconference. All parties are directed to be present either at NIC HQ Delhi or NIC Centre Bijnore. Appellant will provide her contact numbers to the Registry so that she can be spoken to in case of any difficulty in appearing at the next hearing.
Notice of this Decision be given free of charge to all parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
24-9-2007
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
24-9-2007
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00299 dated 26-2-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19
Complainant: Smt. Shama Praveen
Respondent: Delhi Police.
FACTSBy an application of 13-11-2006 Mrs. Shama Praveen of Julahan Street, Bijnore applied to the DCP (West) and PIO, New Delhi regarding a complaint of 25-7-06 filed by her brother Shri Zafaryab Ahmed against the Investigating Officer (IO) in a case in Uttam Nagar, District West as follows:
“a) Provide certified copy of enquiry/ investigation report of aforementioned complaint.
b) Provide certified copy of action taken report in case of deliberately furnishing incorrect information under RTI Act’ 2005 that is that FIR No. 712/2000 was registered under 156(3)
Cr. P. C. Whereas it is an admitted position that FIR was registered by6 officials of P.S. Uttam Nagar and there is nothing to show that FIR was registered on the direction of court under 156(3) Cr. P. C. (RE: Appeal No. (6) RTIA/06 (WD)/3779/SO/SR, dated 28.6.2006).
c) What action has been taken against the HC, IO and other police officials for misusing official position deliberately filling charge sheet and for extracting R. 6000/-? Whether scientific tests as requested by us have been used to ascertain the truth.
d) Provide certified copies of incoming and out going phone call records of the phone numbers furnished by us vide previous communications and request was made for their call log print out vide aforementioned complaint so as to confirm nexus between police officials and plotters (Accused in my dowry case). If call records has not been taken to ascertain the truth what other methods has been used to ascertain the truth.
e) If enquiry/investigation/action on the matters referred in Para a), b), C) & d) has not been conducted/ taken reasons for the same may be spelt out. If no action has been taken, what is the policy of Delhi Police in dealing with complaints against its officials who misuse their official position for unlawful gain and implicate the innocent citizens in false and frivolous cases and drag them before the courts so as to harass and humiliate them at the instance of rival party who were already accused in dowry case.
f) Provide complete information, procedure, policies, norms and grounds for using scientific methods in investigation/enquiry in the day to day functioning in case I) offenses offended by citizens and ii) when the complaint is related to corruption, misuse of official position and the violation of human rights by the officials of Delhi Police.
g) Provide copy of the compromise letter and or basis/documents on the grounds of which police have been claiming that parties have compromised and that could have legitimately led to a decision not to initiate any action against the police officials for abusing his official position and derelictions of duties.
h) Provide certified copies of entire records including notings made by concerned persons who have dealt the case and material submitted by us and other concerned parties during the pendency of the said complaint.
i) Information/procedure for filing a complaint with international agencies like “UNHRC” Amnesty International etc. I request to either provide the required information or transfer this application to concerned department/ organization, which can provide me with the required information.”
To this she received a reply on 1-12-06 from Shri Robin Hibu, CPIO & DCP (West) as follows:
“a) Your request of providing of certified copy of enquiry/investigation report conducted on the complaint dated 25.7.06 of Shri Zafaryab Ahmed, has been considered in this office, but could not be acceded to as this is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1) (e) & (g) of the “Right to Information Act, 2005”.
b) A case vide FIR No. 712/2000 u/s 324/34 IPC registered/investigated at P.S. Uttam Nagar, as regard to action u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C. It is pertinent to mention here what a complaint of Sh. Zafaryab Ahmed was received at O. S. Uttam Nagar which was already moved by him in the Hon’ble Court of Bijnour (UP) u/s 156(3) Cr. P. C. alleging therein that he and his family members has been defamed and cheated by Smt. Keshar Jahan @ Neha and others and this complaint pertain to FIR No. 1094-C/2000 registered at P. S. Kotwali (UP). On receipt of this report at P. S. Uttam Nagar, the legal opinion was sought from prosecution Branch and no action was suggested to be taken in this matter at P. S. Uttam Nagar. Hence the case file of this matter has been returned back to P. S. Kotwali Bijnour (UP) thought S. S. P. Bijnour (UP) vide, this office letter No. 13632/ SO/W dated 6.8.2003 for further investigation and furnishing his report to concerned CJM.
c) Inquiry has been conducted and nothing found wrong against the I. O. and other officials.
d) The matter relates to year 2000 and nothing can be done. Moreover, the judiciary has disposed of the same.
e) Proper enquiry was conducted into the complaint made against the I. O. and nothing found wrong.
f) The scientific methods are adopted by the Delhi Police as per the requirement and circumstances of the case. But in this case no such circumstances found to adopt the same.
g) The certified copy of judgment may be had from the concerned court.
h) Your request of providing of certified copies of entire records including noting during enquiry, has been considered in this office, but could not be acceded to as the same is exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (e) & (g) of the “Right to Information Act, 2005”.
i) The same by had from the concerned office of UNHRC etc.”
Not satisfied with this response Mrs. Shama Praveen moved her first appeal before Jt. Commissioner (Police) Southern Range, Delhi Police (Hq.). The principal thrust of which was as follows:
“a) Enquiry/ investigation report has been sought regarding complaint and clinching material filed before your good self vide our complaint dated 25.7.2006. We are keen to know outcome of this enquiry/investigation undertaken on the input furnished by us. However the PIO did not provide the same without giving any justification or grounds as to how disclosure of information is exempted u/s 8 (1) (e) and (g).
b) Information provided in response to this point is not corresponding to the information sought. Hence I appeal to kindly provide correct information whether FIR No. 712/2000 was registered under 156 (3) Cr. P.C. If yes, provide proof of the same. If no what action has been taken for providing us incorrect information under RTIA vide Appeal No. (6) RTIA/06 (WD)/3779/SO/SR, dated 28.6.2006.”
The appeal was heard by Shri Rajesh Kumar, Appellate Authority and decision given on 23-1-07, in which he has held as follows:
On careful consideration, I find that point wise / parawise reply has been sent to her by the PIO/WD in response to her application dated 13.11.06 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It appears
that the appellant is dissatisfied with the action taken by the police into the matter. Here it is important to mention that under the Right to Information Act, 2005, a citizen has the right to know the status of an issue. The appellant cannot claim that the issue should be decided or should have been decided in a particular manner. If the appellant is not satisfied with person aggrieved by police action can move accordingly. As such there has been no denial of the Right of the appellant under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
However, PIO/WD is directed to give to the appellant a copy of the enquiry report prepared on the complaint dated 25.7.06 filed by his brother Sh. Zafaryab Ahmed, after suitably deleting from it any
names or specific details etc which will expose any person to avoidable risk (reference Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005).”
On no action being taken on this Order Mrs. Shama Praveen moved her second appeal before us with the following prayer:
“(i) Direct the PIO and AA, to provide the entire information as requested vide RTI Application
(ii) Direct the respondents to provide all information free of cost considering my BPL status.
(iii) Grant Rupees One- Lakh (Rs. 1,00,000) compensation for deliberately refusing
information/documents because of non-supply of which is leading of face avoidable trials in different court in Delhi, made to rush Delhi and appellant family has been compelled to file SLP, in Hon’ble Supreme Court and thus causing serious emotional harm, social, financialand mental harassment & torture to entire family.
(iv) Impose penalties for adopting dilatory tactics, exhibiting irresponsible attitude and deliberately failing to act as per mandate of the RTI Act and thus ‘frustrated’ the objective of the RTI Act, 2005.
(v) Direct the Commissioner of Police, Delhi/appropriate authority to do the needful to ensure that no further harassment is caused to the appellant family for seeking this Hon’ble Commission’s intervention in the matter.
(vi) Grant Cost of this appeal as prescribed under sub section 8 (b) of Section 19 of the RTI Act. RTIA 2005 as RTIA 2005 was enacted for bringing transparency and accountability in public life. Denial of information on whimsical grounds has defeated the objective of RTIA, 2005.”
The appeal was heard on 24-9-2007 through video-conferencing. The following are present at the NIC Studio, New Delhi.
Respondents:
Shri Jagdev Singh, APIO
Shri Rajinder Singh, O/o DIG/W
Shri Parmaditya, ACP/ TN
Although, informed of the date and place of hearing because the appellant was absent we assumed that she had opted not to be present at the NIC Studio, Bijnore.
Respondents explained that they have, in fact, treated appellant as BPL (Below Poverty Line) and it is by error that she had been asked to deposit Rs. 2/. The information directed by the appellate authority to be sent to her is ready but appellant has not appeared to collect it.
INTERIM DECISION:
The CPIO is directed to dispatch the information stated to have been prepared on the basis of order of 1st Appellate Authority to appellant Mrs. Shama Praveen within one week of date of this decision notice under intimation to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Jt. Registrar, Central Information Commission.
We also find that information regarding points (a) (d) (g) (h) (i) has not been given. The CPIO Shri Robin Hibu DC (West) will, therefore, provide such information as is held by him or transfer the request to the appropriate authority u/s 6 (3) (i) and (ii) within 5 days of date of issue of this notice. This should have been done at the time of the receipt of the application.
As will be noted PIO has pleaded Section 8 (1) (e) and (g). Whereas recourse to Sec 8 (1) (g) has been upheld by Appellate Authority since this is a case of criminal proceedings from both sides, the issue of fiduciary relationship u/s 8 (1) (e) does not arise in a matter concerning registration of police cases.
The above decision was announced in the hearing. However, subsequent to the decision being announced we have received a telephone call from Bijnour from the father of complainant that although she had received the notice of hearing, the contact officer Mr. R.K. Goyal misled her. As per their fax message received at 5.17 pm on 24.9.’07 appellant Ms Shama Parveen has stated that they phoned Mr. Goyal at 12.30 p.m. who told the appellant to come to the Centre where he will meet them, but when the appellant reached the premises with her father at 1.10 p.m. Mr. Goyal had left for Vikas Bhavan, Bijnore. Due to which they could not appear for hearing.
We also find that during the hearing no officer of the NIC was in fact present. The attendant present at the Centre stated that they had been called away for a meeting. This leads to the arising of a doubt that, taken in the context of the appeal alleging dowry harassment, of the possibility of malafide intention in preventing the appellant Ms. Shama Praveen from appearing before us. Whereas CPIO will comply with the directions given the hearing as noted I the Interim Decision above, for the reasons described a Post Decisional Hearing will now be held on 26th October 2007 at 1.30 p.m. through videoconference. All parties are directed to be present either at NIC HQ Delhi or NIC Centre Bijnore. Appellant will provide her contact numbers to the Registry so that she can be spoken to in case of any difficulty in appearing at the next hearing.
Notice of this Decision be given free of charge to all parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
24-9-2007
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
24-9-2007
No comments:
Post a Comment