Central Information Commission
Minakshi Maheshwari vs National Crime Record Bureau on 27 November, 2020
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NCREB/A/2018/637387
Ms. MinakshiMaheshwari ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
The PIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
DY DIRECTOR (CCTNS)/CPIO,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
NATIONAL CRIME RECORDS BUREAU,
NH-8, MAHIPALPUR NEW DELHI - 110037
Date of Hearing : 24.12.2020
Date of Decision : 26.11.2020
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.11.2018
PIO replied on : 06.12.2018
First Appeal filed on : 07.12.2018
First Appellate Order on : 13.12.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 17.11.2018 seeking the following information:
There have been instances of identity theft and my ID proof, mobile number, email address has been used to create fake profiles. A case of identity theft have also been registered in Mumbai. However, more instances have come to light. Hence, having regard of possible misuse of my ID, I would like to seek information on the following :
1. details of cases in the National Crime Records in any State and including cyber crime which have my name by whatever spelling such as Minakshi Maheshwari, Meenakshi Maheshwari, MinakshiSahay, Meenakshi Sahay or any other spelling of Minakshi such as Minaxi. please note that Sahay was my family surname and Maheshwari is my maiden name Page 1 of 3 The Dy. Director-CCTNS &CPIO, NCRB, Delhi vide letter dated 06.12.2018 informed the Appellant that the crime and criminal data is collected at the police station level and only limited information is shared with the NCRB. Further, the RTI application was transferred under Section 6 (3) to the DGP, PHQ, Chattrapati Shivaji Marg, Colaba, Mumbai 400001, Maharashtra Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.12.2018. The FAA vide order dated 13.12.2018 rejected the FA under Section 8 (1)(h) & (j) of the RTI Act.In its order, the FAA while reiterating the reply of the CPIO also mentioned that NCRB provides data only to law enforcement agencies for the purpose of investigation, policy making, data analysis, research and providing mandated citizen services.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from CPIO and Dy Director, National Crime Records Bureau vide letter dated 12.11.2020 wherein it was stated that NCRB provides infrastructure to the State Police just as the banks provide lockers to citizens. Data entered by the police stations is stored in the servers placed at State Data Centre of the respective State and not at NCRB. NCRB manages the technical aspect of system to facilitate the State Police/ Law Enforcement Agencies to access the data for investigative purposes through national level search facility. Hence, the state police can share the information sought under the RTI Act as deemed appropriate. NCRB is not an investigating agency to make such decisions and therefore RTI was transferred to Maharashtra Police. Hence, it was requested to direct the Appellant to approach the PIO/ Dy Assistant Inspector General (Crime) for getting the desired information.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant did not respond to the telephone calls despite several attempts made by the Commission during the hearing. However, subsequent to the hearing, the Commission is in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant wherein she inter alia stated that due to technical glitches, the call received from the Commission could not be connected to her. Explaining the development in the matter, the Appellant stated that she received a reply from Mumbai Police on 11.01.2019 as under:
"Crime and criminal data collected at the police station level so we have asked the police units from Maharashtra State to send information. The information received from the units is shared below.Page 2 of 3
Mumbai city police has send report that there is complaint given by Minakshi Maheshwari against unknown person for hacking her email ID and creating fake FB account and an offence is registered is registered in cyber police station, Mumbai as SP LAC 14/15"
However, she claims that the information provided is incorrect as 2 FIRs were filed in her name i.e.,CR no. 206/2007 with N.M. Joshi Marg Police station, Mumbai dated 11/07/2007 against Mr.VikramUttamsingh and Ors ; and another being CR. 26/2012 with cyber police station, Mumbai against Mr. Suresh Subramanium. However, the reply to the instant RTI does not reflect the same. The e-FIR are not uploaded and she was given information in her own cyber case and it's status only after an order of the Information Commissioner, Mumbai in March 2017 after she showed that in the list of FIRs filed by women or crime against women, SP LAC 14/15 was not mentioned. She further stated that NCRB disposed off the RTI by merely transferring it to Maharashtra seeing her address as being in Mumbai. Being a resident of other states and in any case, if anyone has targeted her through identity theft in any other criminal offence in any other state, she needs to know the same from the Central Agency.
The Respondent is represented by Shri S.K. Saxena through audio conference. Referring to their written submission, he stated that NCRB is not an investigating agency and the issues raised in the RTI application pertained to the activities of state law enforcement agencies hence the application was transferred to the Maharashtra Police. Hence, the Appellant can approach the PIO/ Dy Assistant Inspector General (Crime), Maharashtra Police for getting the desired information Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the available records, the Commission notes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 is provided by the Respondent NCRB. The Commission would not like to opine on matters before the State Government or the State Information Commission. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3