Till the time a woman can walk into a police station all alone and file a First Information Report (FIR), the police are a long way away from ensuring participation.

So, although the State Director General of Police (DGP) issued a circular directing all police stations in the state to restrain them from avoiding complaints by not registering first information reports (FIRs) for the complaints disclosing cognisable offences, they’ve yet got miles to go.

Now, according to the circular, strict action would be taken against erring police personnel who refuse to register an FIR in accordance with law.

Following the next few months, a Right to Information query on the same issue could reveal whether any “action was initiated against any police personnel at all,” and statistics of FIRs filed to reveal corresponding increase in ‘the’ period.

 The circular has been issued by inspector general of police Gulabrao Pol on February 17, pursuant to earlier directions of the court which was hearing a petition filed by a Worli resident, AnusuyaPatil, an elderly widow allegedly beaten up by a small-time builder and his aides.

When an officer attached with the Dadar police refused to register an FIR and turned her away after recording a non-cognisable offence, the court took a stern note of the mushrooming of complaints leveled against the police to refuse filing FIRs.Coming down heavily on the city police, the court had questioned as to whom were they serving. Public or Builders and asked if the poor and helpless had any right at all?

Because there were diverse judgements by the Apex court over the years on the same issue, a three-judge bench of Justices said that the issue needed to be settled by a Constitutional bench. According to the bench, in some cases, the apex court had ruled that the registration of FIR?was mandatory while in several others held that the police officer had the discretion in registering an FIR as he can conduct a preliminary inquiry on the veracity of the complaint.

"In view of the divergent opinions in a large number of cases decided by this Court, it has become extremely important to have a clear enunciation of law and adjudication by a larger bench of this court for the benefit of all concerned, the courts, the investigating agencies and the citizens.

Consequently, we request the Chief Justice to refer these matters to a Constitution Bench of at least five judges of this Court for an authoritative judgment," said Justice Bhandari, writing the judgement.  The apex court was referring to a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the father of a six-year-old girl allegedly kidnapped by miscreants in UP's Ghaziabad district. The police had reportedly demanded money to register an FIR.

FIR copy to be given under the RTI Act

The Delhi High Court recently declared that a copy of the FIR?can be given under the Right to Information Act unless it is shown in strict terms as to the effect that giving such information would hamper investigation.

The High Court held the mere pendency of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders is not a good ground to deny information. If furnishing the same information would impede the process of investigation, apprehension or prosecution of offenders, it could be denied.

The word ‘impede’ indicates furnishing of information can be denied when disclosure would jeopardise or would hamper investigation, apprehension or prosecution of offenders. In Law Lexicon, RamanathaAiyer 2nd Edition 1997 it is observed the word ‘impede’ is not synonymous with ‘obstruct’. The word ‘impede’ therefore does not mean total obstruction and compared to the word ‘obstruction’ or ‘prevention’, the word ‘impede’ requires hindrance of a lesser degree.

It is less injurious than prevention or an absolute obstacle. Contextually in Section 8(1)(h) it will mean anything which would hamper and interfere with procedure followed in the investigation and have the effect to hold back the progress of investigation, apprehension of offenders or prosecution of offenders.

However, the impediment, if alleged, must be actual and not make belief and a camouflage to deny information. To claim exemption under the said Sub-section it has to be ascertained in each case whether the claim by the public authority has any reasonable basis.

The onus under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act is on the public authority. The Section does not provide for a blanket exemption covering all information relating to investigation process and even partial information wherever justified can be granted.

Exemption under Section 8(1)(h) necessarily is for a limited period and has an end point i.e. when process of investigation is complete or offender has been apprehended and prosecution ends. The protection from disclosure will also come to an end when disclosure of information no longer causes impediment to prosecution of offenders, apprehension of offenders or further investigation.

An FIR and post mortem reports are information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as they are material in form of record, documents or reports which are held by the public authority. Also, a FIR as per Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the first information recorded in writing by an officer in-charge of a police station and read over to the informant.

The substance of the said information is entered in a book / register required to be maintained as per the form prescribed by the State Government. Also, a copy of the First Information Report has to be furnished forthwith and free of cost to the informant and under section 157 of the Code the same has to be sent forthwith to the Magistrate empowered to take cognisance of the said offence. There are judicial decisions in which FIR has been held to be a public document under the Evidence Act, 1872.

Under Sections 74 and 76 of the Evidence Act, 1872 a person who has right to inspect a public document also has a right to demand copy of the same. Right to inspect a public document is not an absolute right but subject to Section 123 of the Evidence Act,1872.

The inspection of a public document can be refused for reasons of the State or on account of injury to public interest. Under Section 363(5) of the Code any person affected by a judgment or an order passed by a criminal court, on an application and payment of prescribed charges is entitled to copy of such judgment, order, deposition or part of record.

Under Sub-section (6) any third person who is not affected by a judgment or order can also on payment of a fee and subject to such conditions prescribed by the High Court, apply for copies of any judgment or order of the criminal court.

As regard the disclosure of post-mortem report, the High Court declared disclosure of post mortem reports at a stage when investigation is in progress even without names of the doctors falls in a different category.  Post mortem reports contains various details with regard to nature and type of injuries/wounds, time of death, nature of weapons used, etc.

Furnishing of these details at a time when investigation is afoot is likely to impede investigation and prosecution of offenders. Disclosure may be prevented if furnishing of postmortem report could jeopardise and create hurdles in apprehension and prosecution of offenders who may, once information is made available, take steps which may make it difficult and prevent the State from effective and proper investigation and prosecution.

Once an applicant seeks information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the same cannot be denied to the information seeker except on any of the grounds mentioned in Sections 8 or 9 of the RTI Act. The PIO or the appellate authorities cannot add and introduce new reasons or grounds for rejecting furnishing of information.

(Readers keen on seeking help on drafting RTI applications may write in to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or call Gajanan Khergamker on 022-22841593 for any assistance on RTI or to have their findings / issue featured on this page)

Charu Khandal is paralysed indefinitely. The animator and national award winner for Ra.One was seriously injured in an accident on the morning of March 25. Two others with her during the incident too were badly wounded.

The catastrophe occurred when twenty-eight-year-old Charu was returning home in an auto-rickshaw with her sister and friend after a party she had thrown following her success at the national awards. Incidentally, the auto turned turtle and the animator received injuries on her head and spine. The car which struck Charu’s rickshaw was allegedly being driven by a drunk driver then arrested for rash and negligent driving and later released on bail.

Charu’s association with Shah Rukh Khan’s Ra One and a concurrent Facebook campaign to fetch justice for Charu helped bring again into focus the issue of drunk driving and speeding. There has been a rise of 118 per cent in fatal bike accidents over nine years and between 2001 and 2009, the rise in casualties in such mishaps has been 131 per cent.

A Right to Information (RTI) Act query to the Mumbai traffic police revealed that in 2001, 38 people were killed in 38 bike accidents and the number soar to 88 in 83 mishaps in 2009. Between January 2002 and March 2010, an average 72 people were killed every year in two-wheeler accidents. The corresponding rise in four-wheeler fatal accidents is 6.9 per cent and the increase in number of casualties is 6.6 per cent.

In 2001, 396 people were killed in 374 accidents, while in 2009, the fatality rose to 422 in 400 accidents. In case of three-wheelers, the increase in accidents over the same period was about 7.6 per cent. There was a ten per cent decline in accident rates involving other vehicles. Between 2001 and 2009, the number of seriously injured grew by 40 per cent with 511 people seriously injured in 2009 while it was 385 in 2001.

In the case of car accidents, the number increased from 1,146 in 2001 to 1,207 in 2009. The number of people seriously injured in these rose from 1,205 to 1,305. In the case of three-wheelers, the rise in non-fatal accidents involving serious injuries was 5.4 per cent.

The information further revealed that an average 572 people have died every year in road accidents between January 2001 and March 2010.

During the period, a total of 5,324 died in 5,135 mishaps. The traffic department claimed that it had been conducting awareness drives to inculcate better traffic sense and discipline, but the figures proved that much more required to be done.  Last lap On March 31th this year, 18-year-old Shivani Raut died in a car crash, while six others were hospitalised following an accident near an ATM?after the driver lost control and hit a tree before hitting a stationary autorickshaw.  Police sources claim that the friend, 23-year-old Rahul Mishra was driving the car in an inebriated state.  The accident happened near an ATM, after the driver lost control and hit a tree, before ramming straight into a stationary autorikshaw. Rahul Mishra was charged for rash driving, driving under the influence of alcohol and culpable homicide not amounting murder. Mumbai Police, which had registered more than 11,000 drunk driving cases each year since 2008, has registered over 3,000 cases this year and suspended more than 38,000 driving licenses for drunken driving since 2007.

Drunk and Deadly! In 2010, inebriated India-born US national and beautician Nooriya Haveliwala killed two persons. In court, four eye witnesses identified Haveliwala as the accused who was driving the car and ran over people under the influence of alcohol. The figures of drunk and driving instances may well be a lot higher than reported if the authorities actually implemented the law instead of merely concentrating on ‘spot’ detections such as jumping signals or failure to wear helmets.

STARS STRUCK ... AND LITERALLY!

Who: Salman Khan When:  28th September 2002 Details: Actor Salman Khan had run over some pavement dwellers in Bandra, Mumbai with his Land Cruiser. He surrendered before the Bandra police more than eight hours after the accident. Salman was taken for medical tests while his lawyer secured bail in the Bandra police station. He had driven his jeep over some people sleeping outside American Express Bakery on Hill Road junction in Bandra, Mumbai, killing one and causing serious injuries to three persons. The deceased and the injured were A1 Bakery employees sleeping outside American Express Bakery. According to witnesses, Salman’s car was completely destroyed. After the accident, people gathered at the spot even allegedly beat up the actor, who fled from the spot along with Kamaal Khan.

Who: Ronit Roy When: 28th October 2011 Details: At around 6:30 a.m. while driving his Mercedes on Link Road near Andheri, TV actor Ronit Roy, rammed his car into another injuring three of its four occupants, including an elderly lady. At the time of the accident, Ronit did go out and to help the injured and took them to hospital but all this was done without informing the police. The police arrested him on the victim’s complaint. A court later granted him bail of Rs. 12,000, after being charged under Indian Penal Code Section 279 (rash driving) and 338 (causing grievous injury endangering lives).

Who: Sanjay Dutt When: 3rd October 2011 Details: Last year, returning from Ranbir Kapoor birthday party, Sanjay Dutt, was caught on camera driving his car while under the influence of alcohol. Apparently, Sanjay Dutt got completely drunk and it was birthday boy Ranbir Kapoor who had to come out to drop him near his car. Despite being extremely sloshed, Sanjay insisted his drivers to take a backseat. Sanjay Dutt took the charge of the driver’s seat and drove till his home.

Who: Aditya Pancholi When: July 1999 Details: More than a decade ago, Actor Aditya Pancholi was caught driving his car while under the influence of alcohol. The actor was driving a van that crashed into two policemen patrolling Santacruz on a motorcycle, injuring them. Pancholi was charged under sections 279 and 338 for rash and negligent driving and 185 for driving under the influence of alcohol. He was later released on bail.

(Readers keen on seeking help on drafting RTI applications may write in to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or call Gajanan Khergamker on 022-22841593 for any assistance on RTI or to have their findings / issue featured on this page)