RTI for FIR status and criminal history denied by police

[drvatsa]

About a year ago I was attacked by few people during duty in government office and sustained hair line fracture. Initially in FIR ipc 353 was included but later removed during supervision by SDPO. One of the accused has 4 criminal cases and other has spent few months in jail in other cases of assault and grievous injury. Till now the accused have not been arrested and have been given bail 6 months ago.  The investigating officer has told me that higher officials are protecting the accused so ipc section 353 332 333 which are non bailable have been removed. About a year to end and the investigation has not been completed. Meanwhile the accused have been given bail from police station.

The then officer in charge of the police station and SDPO supervising the case have told me verbally that the accused have no criminal history. But  The investigating officer says  that multiple criminal cases are  against the accused.

I sent multiple RTI about case status, criminal history of accused to the police which has been denied , on the ground that the case is under investigation. In reply to the first  RTI the investigating officer has replied that ipc 332 333 can be implemented in this case which was not done by then officer in charge. 

 

However all the RTI thereafter was rejected. The first appeal to DIG police has also been rejected on same ground that case is under investigation. The investigating officer has hinted that the RTI  appeals are now rejected as per direction from higer officials. In my state the Information commissioner post is vacant for more than 8 months so I have not sent the second appeal. 

What should be done now ??

 

[Prasad GLN]

Unless you give chronological order of events etc, it is not proper to expect proper guidance.

As far as RTI is concerned there was no section for denial stating that providing information impedes the investigation process unless there is justification as to how such providing of information impede the progress of investigation.  There are more than 100+judgments stating that mere stating a section in Sec. 8 (1) is not sufficient, there should be justification for applying that section.   The denial is not justified, approach to Information Commission under Sec.19 of RTI act after first appeal.

You can also make another RTI seeking status.   Simply stating a status of investigation can never impede the progress of investigation.  Wait for 35 days, go for first appeal, and wait for another 35 days and go for second appeal.  If you have stopped in first step after receiving denial from SPIO, pray for condoning of the delay and take a chance by filing appeal with following ground.

Grounds for Appeal:  SPIO has not justified as to how disclosure of such information on status impede the progress of investigation.   As there is no justification, the denial is treated as deliberate and malafide, hence this first appeal as without justification stating a section is not legally proper as per hundreds of such IC decisions in the past.

Prayer: Appellant prays for directions to SPIO for providing status of FIR and progress of investigation, as expeditious as possible free of cost. SPIO may sever that information which he thinks that impede the progress of investigation.

 

Please file a grievance petition to Supdt of Police on line as per PGRMS/Citizen Charer scheme explaining the harassment.

[Sunil Ahya]

 

You may file a first appeal on the following grounds:

1.       I would hereby like to draw your kind attention to the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Transferred Case (Civil) No. 97 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 716 of 2012) in National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development v/s. Sanjay SitaramKurhade, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the reasoning given in the CIC Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002405/16514, the relevant extract of which has been quoted below for your immediate reference and perusal:

“The PIO has denied the information simply on the claim that such disclosure would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. However, he has failed to explain how such disclosure would actually be an impediment to the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution, as laid down above by the High Court of Delhi. The denial of information by the PIO appears to be a mere blanket statement not supported by any cogent evidence or material on the basis of which it can be clearly demonstrated that such disclosure would in fact attract the exemption contained in Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The PIO has failed to discharge the burden placed upon him under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act to prove that the denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act was justified.”

2.  Also, you can annex the following decisions of CIC.

1_Mr._Sanjay_Mourya_vs_Mcd,_Gnct_Delhi_on_15_February,_2012.PDF 2_Mr._Ajit_Kumar_Singh_vs_Central_Reserve_Police_Force_on_20_July,_2010.PDF 3_CIC_BS_A_2013_000275_4579_M_124997.pdf 4_CIC_SM_A_2011_000249_SG_12387_M_56399.pdf 5_CIC_SS_A_2013_000389_M_119864.pdf