Central Information Commission
Anuradha Sardar vs National Commission For Women (Ncw) on 14 July, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NCFWO/C/2021/136871
Anuradha Sardar ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Commission for Women,
RTI Cell, Plot No.-21, Jasola Institutional Area,
New Dethi-110025. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13/07/2022
Date of Decision : 13/07/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 05/06/2021
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26/08/2021
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 05.06.2021 seeking the following information:
"1. Kindly inform me regarding the recorded reasons for which the then Officer-in-Charge of Survey Park Police Station namely Sri Biswak Mukherjee kept himself reluctant instead of registering FIR under Section 354, 509, 504, 120B and 506 IPC against the aforesaid Rabin Banerjee, Sima Banerjee 1 and the relevant Sub-Inspector of Survey Park Police Station namely Mr. Joydeb Das after getting the information of Cognizable Offence on 21.6.2019 by Speed Post through my Complaint dated 20.6.2019 relating to woman as aforesaid.
2. Please intimate me about the action that has been taken by the Officer- in-Charge of Survey Park Police Station namely Sri Biswak Mukherjee in respect of my letter dated 20.6.20194which he received on 21.6.2019 under Speed Post Consignment No. EW253414296IN.
3. Kindly let me know regarding the FIR that has been registered by the Officer-in-Charge of Survey Park Police Station under Section 120B, 166A(c) and 217 of I.P.C. against Sri Biswak Mukherjee in respect of my Advocate's letter dated 29.6.2019 ? If not so, please let me know the lawful reason for which the prevailing statutory provision of our country has been violated by the concerned Public Servant through non-registration of such FIR against my said Advocate's letter dated 29.6.2019.
4. Please let me know regarding the action that has been taken by the Commissioner of Kolkata Police in respect of my Advocate's letter dated 29.6.2019 which was duly received by him on 01.7.2019 under Speed Post Consignment No. EW3840653151N? if so, kindly narrate about the recorded lawful action taken by him against the offenders. If not so, please also mention the reasons for which he kept himself reluctant regarding such offenders.
5. Please intimate me regarding the action that has been taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Kolkata Police [East Division] in connection with my Advocate's letter dated 29.6.2019, which was duly received by him on 01.7.2019 under Speed Post Consignment No. EW3840653411N? its , kindly describe regarding the lawful action taken by such Public Servant against the concerned Offenders in terms of the prevailing law of the land and the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
6. Kindly give me the reference number and details of the Order passed by the Home Secretary to the Government of West Bengal upon which the concerned Police Officer-in-Charge did not register FIR against the relevant Offenders of Cognizable Offence [where the offenders are the Police Personnel of Survey Park Police Station and where it is transpired that the protector is predator ] relating to the insultation to the modesty of a poor Women violating the mandatory provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well as violating the Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
27. Kindly give me the reference number and details of the Order passed by the Home Secretary to the Government of West Bengal upon which the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police did not take initiative to register FIR against the said BISWAK MUKHERJEE in respect of Cognizable Offences [ where the offenders are the Police Personnel of Survey Park Police Station and where it is transpired that the protector is predator ] punishable under Section 166A(c), 1208 and 217 of the Indian Penal Code relating to the insultation to the modesty of a poor Women violating the mandatory provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well as violating the Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
8. Please provide me the recorded lawful reasons for which the said Sri Biswak Mukherjee impeded me to have Natural Justice by willfully showing his impudent garrulity to insult the Highest Forum of Judiciary through making intentional violation of the Orders as aforesaid passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
9. Please provide me the reference number and details of the Order passed by the Commissioner of Kolkata Police on the basis of which the Officer-in- Charge of Survey Park Police Station did not register FIR against the relevant Offenders of Cognizable Offence [where the offenders are the Police Personnel of Survey Park Police Station] relating to Women, violating the mandatory provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well as the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court as aforesaid.
10. Please provide me the reference number and details of the Order passed by the Commissioner of Kolkata Police wherefrom it is transparent that NO FIR CAN EVER BE REGISTERED AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER OR THE OFFICER- IN-CHARGE OF A POLICE STATION, WHO, BEING THE PUBLIC SERVANT/S , IS /ARE ACCUSED OF SOME COGNIZABLE OFFENCES relating to the insultation of a woman on the basis of which the Officer-in- Charge of Survey Park Police Station did not register FIR against the relevant Offenders of Cognizable Offence [where the offenders are the Police Personnel of Survey Park Police Station] relating to Women, violating the mandatory provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well as the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court as aforesaid.
11. Please provide me the reference number and details of the Order passed by the Home Secretary to the Government of West Bengal wherefrom it is transparent that NO FIR CAN EVER BE REGISTERED AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER OR THE OFFICER-1N-CHARGE OF A POLICE STATION, WHO, BEING THE PUBLIC SERVANT/S, IS /ARE ACCUSED OF SOME COGNIZABLE OFFENCES relating to the insultation of a woman on the basis of which the relevant 3 Deputy Commissioner of Police did not take initiative to register FIR against the relevant Offenders of Cognizable Offence [where the offenders are the Police Personnel of Survey Park Police Station] relating to Women, violating the mandatory provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well as the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court as aforesaid.
12. Kindly provide me with the recorded lawful reasons for which no FIR has not been registered till date against the said BISWAK MUKHERJEE under Section 120B, 166A(c) and 217 of IPC, violating the prevailing statutory provision, where it is transparent that the relevant offences were committed by the said BISWAK MUKHERJEE along with his associates in terms of my Advocate's Letter dated 29.06.2019 , which was duly received by the Commissioner of Kolkata Police on 01.7.2019 by Speed Post.
13. Please let me know the lawful reasons for which no FIR has not been registered till date against the said BISWAK MUKHERJEE under Section 120B, 166A(c) and 217 of IPC, violating the prevailing statutory provision , where it is transparent that the relevant offences were committed by the said BISWAK MUKHERJEE along with his associates in terms of my Advocate's Letter dated 29.06.2019, which was duly received by the Deputy Commissioner of Kolkata Police of East Division of Kolkata Police on 01.7.2019 by Speed Post.
14. Kindly provide me the details of the relevant circular/s made by the Deputy Commissioner of Kolkata Police, wherefrom it is evident that all the Police Personnel are exempted to be FIR named accused persons respectively inspite of making commission of Cognizable Offences relating to Woman i.e., who were alleged to commit the Cognizable offences , punishable under Section 1208, 166A(c), 201 and 217 of the Indian Penal Code in collusion and/or in active connivance of his associates.
15. Please let me know about the details of the Order passed by the Commissioner of Kolkata Police in respect of which the relevant offending Public Servant can send his associates to the complainant i.e. the victim woman /women in order to intimidate her/them criminally for causing disappearance of the evidences of the offences committed by the concerned Public Servant by uttering abusive and fearful languages and also by making collection of signatures on several blank papers.
16. Kindly provide me the details of the relevant circular/s made by the Commissioner of Kolkata Police, wherefrom it is transpired that the concerned Police Officer-in-Charge alongwith his associates are in duty bound to make understand the relevant victim women for not taking the legal help of an advocate in terms of their misery."
4Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed the instant complaint with the Commission.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Arun Khurana, SO & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the hearing notice served to the Complainant has been received back undelivered with the postal remarks "addressee could not be located". Therefore, due efforts were made by the Registry of this bench to contact the Complainant; however, no contact number as also the email id has been annexed with the instant case. The Commission is not in a position to send any further intimation to the Complainant in this regard for want of an alternate correspondence address in the records, therefore, in the interest of justice, the case is being decided on merits.
The CPIO submitted that a timely factual response has been provided to the Complainant on 25.06.2021 intimating the factum of non-receipt of the complaint dated 29.06.2019; on which the information has been sought.
Decision The Commission upon a perusal of records finds no infirmity in the factual timely reply provided by the CPIO to the incoherent and cumbersome RTI Application of the Complainant, as the same was in consonance with the provision of RTI Act.
In view of the above, no action is warranted in the matter.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 6