Monday, February 9, 2015

DELHI police say complaint NOT avilable as SHO retired ! CIC asks police to provide copies !!


Husband files RTI to get copies of wife's complaint and related details .... Delhi police say no copies are available as the SHO has retired !!


".........the Commission is of the view that there is merit in the contention put forth by the appellant that the relevant records must be available at PS Prashant Vihar, which is a Government property and the retiring police official must handover the relevant records to the SHO/concerned staff. The Commission hereby directs the CPIO to locate the concerned file and provide copy of complaint dated 9.9.2005 along with relevant documents to the appellant........."


*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
 
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************



Central Information Commission

Mr.Rahul Kumar Goyal vs Delhi Police on 13 September, 2013

                         Central Information Commission
              Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
                      Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi­110066
                     Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931

                                                 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003232
                                                              Dated: 13.09.2013

Name of Appellant                  :      Shri Rahul Kumar Goyal
Name of Respondent                 :      Delhi Police, Outer District
Date of Hearing                    :      19.08.2013

                                       ORDER

Shri Rahul Kumar Goyal, hereinafter called the appellant has filed the present appeal dated 10.09.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Delhi Police, Outer District for not providing complete information in response to his RTI application dated 16.4.2012. The appellant was present whereas the respondent were represented by Shri M.A. Rizvi, Addl.DCP/CPIO, Shri Shambhoo Dayal, Inspector, Shri Krishanpal, ASI, Shri Rajender, SHO/Prashant Vihar.

2. The appellant through his RTI application dated 16.4.2012 sought information on the following four queries: "(1) Whether his father in law Shashikant Kalgaonkar made police complaint dated 8.2.2005, 5.9.2005, 16.12.2005, 16.6.2008, 6.2.2011, 9.5.2011, 1.6.2011, 2.6.2011 against him and his family members or any other police complaint by him; (2) What action has been taken on these police complaints; (3) What are the documents attached with these police complaints; and (4) Please provide copies of all police complaints with all the attachments and statements given by his wife Swati Kalgaonkar and by his in-laws Shashi Kant Kalgaonkar and Manju Kalgaonkar." http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

The CPIO replied to the appellant, in seriatim, on the basis of report/comments/ documents obtained from SHO/Prashatn Vihar through ACP as follows: "(1) As per the report of SHO/Prashant Vihar, Delhi no complaint for dated 8.2.2005, 5.9.2005, 16.12.2005, 16.6.2008, 6.2.2011, 9.5.2011, 1.6.2011 and 2.6.2011 filed by Shri S.K. Kalgaonkar against him and his family members. There were two complaints dated 9.9.2005 and 8.2.2011 filed by Shri Shashi Kant Kalgaonkar against him and his family members received at PS Prashant Vihar, Delhi; (2 and 4) In this regard, the appellant can collect photocopy of requisite information/documents i.e. photo copy of complaint dated 8.2.2011 and its enquiry report as received from SHO through ACP on any working day after paying a sum of Rs. 22 consisting of 11 pages. Besides, as per the report of SHO record related to complaint dated 9.9.2005 was not available at PS Prashant Vihar and no statement of Smt. Swati Kalgaonkar, Shashi Kant and Manju Kalgaonkar was recorded during enquiry; and (3) As per report of SHO the record related to complaint dated 9.9.2005 was not available at PS Prashant Vihar. No document was attached with complaint dated 8.2.2011."

3. Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 28.5.2012 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order No. 384/Appeal/RTI/Outer District dated 23.6.2012 recorded that the contentions put forth by the appellant and report of the PIO/Outer District has been considered. The appellant has contended in his appeal that he is not satisfied by the reply received. He further requested to instruct the PIO to provide him the record related to complaint dated 9.9.2005 i.e. copy of police complaint, inquiry report, statements etc. and statements of Smt. Swati Kalgaonkar, Shashikant Kalgaonkar and Manju Kalgaonkar recorded during the enquiry of complaint dated 8.2.2011. The FAA remitted back the matter to the CPIO with the directions to provide complete and specific point-wise information as sought by the appellant vide his appeal, permissible under the ARI Act within seven days.

4. In compliance with the directions of the FAA, the CPIO vide letter No. 3521A/RTI Cell/Outer District dated 29.6.2012 informed the appellant as follows: "(1) As per record of PS Prashant Vihar record related to complaint dated 9.9.2005 i.e. copy of police complaint, enquiry report, statement were with ASI Vinod Kumar then posted at PS Prashant Vihar. He is reported to be retired from Delhi Police; (2) May please refer earlier reply in which it is mentioned that information regarding non-availability of statement of Smt. Shashikant, Swati and Manju was about complaint dated 8.2.2011 and not about complaint dated 9.9.2005; and (3) In complaint dated 8.2.2011 no statement of Smt. Shashikant, Swati and Manju were recorded. Hence the statements were not available".

5. In his second appeal filed before the Commission, the appellant states that the CPIO has explained that records related to complaint dated 9.9.2005 were with ASI Vinod Kumar and he is reported to have retired. He submits that police complaint records are Government property. It must be available within the police station. No person/officer can take/dispose of those records when he retires from service as claimed. Records must be handed over to the concerned staff/ SHO at the time of retirement. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

6. During the hearing the respondent CPIO states that in this regard as per fresh report/comments of SHO/Prashant Vihar the complaint dated 9.9.2005 was received at PS Prashant Vihar and marked to then IO ASI Vinod Kumar who has retired from Delhi Police in the year 2005.

7. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the view that there is merit in the contention put forth by the appellant that the relevant records must be available at PS Prashant Vihar, which is a Government property and the retiring police official must handover the relevant records to the SHO/concerned staff. The Commission hereby directs the CPIO to locate the concerned file and provide copy of complaint dated 9.9.2005 along with relevant documents to the appellant. In case this complaint is not traceable, the CPIO is directed to provide specific reply stating action, if any, taken by the Police and the reasons thereof. The CPIO will comply with the directions of the Commission within three weeks of receipt of this order.

The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission with above directions/observations.


(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar


Address of the parties:

Shri Rahul Kumar Goyal, 67C, Ground Floor, Parsvnath Panchvati, Taj Nagri, Phase-II, Agra-282001 (UP).

The Addl. DCP/CPIO, Delhi Police, Outer District, Pushpanjali, Road No. 43, Delhi-110034.

The DCP/FAA, Delhi Police, Outer District, Pushpanjali, Road No. 43, Delhi-110034.



*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist