Central Information Commission
Devender Kumar vs Delhi Police on 12 December, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमार्ग, मुनिरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2022/103855
Shri Devender Kumar ... अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रतिवादीगण /Respondent
Outer-north District
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 12.12.2023
Date of Decision : 12.12.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.09.2021
PIO replied on : 07.10.2021
First Appeal filed on : ---
First Appellate Order on : 13.12.2021
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd
: 27.01.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.09.2021seeking information on following points:-
"Please provide the action taking report on my following mentioned complaints:-
1. S.H.O. PS ALIPUR, DELHI-110036, DIARY No. 42-B, DATED: 25.08.2017.
2. ACP PS ALIPUR, DELHI-110036, VIDE SPEED POST No. ED406312245IN & TVR 696840631224, DATED: 17.09.2019, (copy enclosed of speed post).
3. D.C.P. PS ALIPUR DELHI-110036, VIDE SPEED POST No. ED386131777IN, DATED: 20.11.2019, (copy enclosed of speed post)."
The CPIO/Office of Addl. DCP-I, Outer North District, Delhi vide letter dated 07.10.2021 provided a copy of the report received from SHO/PS Alipur which stated as under:-
Page 1 of 41. A complaint of shri Devender Kumar s/o shri Girdhari Lal r/o H.No:
10 village Mkhmelpur,Delhi was received vide DD. no.42-B dated 25.08.2017in the police station, which was marked to ASI Shridhar No.615/OND. The same is pending with him.
2. One complaint of Shri Devender Kumar s/o Shri Girdhari Lal r/o H.No. 10 village Mkhmelrpur,Delhi was received in the police station vide No. 220/LC/ACP/SPB dated 23.9.2019, which was marked to SI .Sandeep for necessary action. The same is pending with him.
3. As per record of police station, no complaint in the name of applicant vide speed No, ED386131777IN dated 20.11.2019 was received in the police station.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.11.2021. The FAA/Dy. Commissioner of Police, Outer North District, Delhi vide order dated 13.12.2021, stated as under:-
On the appeal, a fresh report has been obtained from SHO/Alipur through ACP/SP Badli. As per report, there is no change in the reply as provided earlier. Accordingly, with these observations, the appeal is disposed off.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 25.11.2023 has been received from the PIO/Addl. DCP-I, Outer North District.
Point No. 1 A complaint filed by the appellant was received in PS Alipur vide DD No.42-B (LC-1152) dated 25.08.2017 and the same was marked to ASI Shridhar. After transfer of ASI Shridhar, the said complaint was marked to ASI Ved Parkash for further necessary action. AS1 Ved Parkash had filed the said complaint on 22.11.2023 mentioning therein that the matter related to property dispute and a Civil Suit No.37285/2016 is sub-judice in Rohini Court, Delhi in this regard. The appellant further alleged that Dayanand Rana threatened him in the Honble Court to kill if he had not withdrawn the above said case against him. On verifying the facts it came to know that the place of incident is Rohini Court, Delhi where he was threatened falls in the jurisdiction of PS Prashant Vihar/Rohini District, Delhi. The complainant was advised to lodge the complaint regarding his grievances at the concerned police station. Hence, no police action is required at this stage. Hence, the complaint has been filed.
Point No. 2 A complaint filed by the appellant was received in PS Alipur LC-220/ACP/Samaypur Badli dated 23.09.2019 and the same was marked to SI Sandeep. After transfer of SI Sandeep, the said complaint was marked to ASI Ved Parkash for further necessary action. ASI Ved Parkash had filed the said complaint on 22.11.2023 mentioning therein that the matter related to property dispute and a Page 2 of 4 Civil Suit No.37285/2016 is sub-judice in Rohini Court, Delhi in this regard. The appellant further alleged that Dayanand Rana threatened him in the Hon'ble Court to kill if he had not withdrawn the above said case against him. On verifying the facts it came to know that the place of incident is Rohini Court, Delhi where he was threatened falls in the jurisdiction of PS Prashant Vihar/Rohini District, Delhi. The complainant was advised to lodge the complaint regarding his grievances at the concerned police station. Hence, no police action is required at this stage. Hence, the complaint has been filed.
Point No.3 The Complaint vide speed post No. ED386131777IN dated 20.11.2019 was neither received in PS Alipur nor in DCP office/outer north district, Delhi.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The following were present :
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. Yash Pal, ACP/Outer North District The Respondent stated that the relevant information has be duly furnished to the Appellant. He reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the Appellant had filed complaints and on enquiry it has been found that the matter related to property dispute and a Civil Suit No.37285/2016 is sub-judice in Rohini Court, Delhi in this regard. However, as regards the allegation of Appellant that Dayanand Rana threatened him in the court to kill if he had not withdrawn the above said case against him. On verifying the facts, it transpired that the place of incident where he was threatened is Rohini Court, Delhi which falls in the jurisdiction of PS Prashant Vihar/Rohini District, Delhi. The complainant was advised to lodge the complaint regarding his grievances at the concerned police station.
Decision:
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालालसामरिया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रति) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4