Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Sujith S. Nair vs Delhi Police on 6 May, 2025

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                      के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                             Central Information Commission
                                  बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                             Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                              नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/624986

Shri Sujith S. Nair                                             ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                    VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Delhi Police, South District                           ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                          :   23.04.2025
Date of Decision                         :   23.04.2025
Chief Information Commissioner           :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :           13.04.2024
PIO replied on                    :              - -
First Appeal filed on             :           17.05.2024
First Appellate Order on          :           07.06.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :           13.06.2024

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:-

"Please explain why the proceedings was proceeded against the victim SUJITH S NAIR under section 107 151 CrPC on 24.06.2023 wherein SEM of Ambedkar Nagar, South Delhi clearly misrepresented victim as an accused after which on 06 07 2023 victim has clearly communicated the same by registering the online delhi police complaint vide complaint number 8955002072300026 dated 06.07.2023 which clearly defines that SUJITH S NAIR is a victim not an accused.

FOOT NOTE Police Force or Investigation Officer of Ambedkar Nagar, South Delhi clearly violated 107 151 CrPC norms after identifying that SUJITH S NAIR is a victim for indepth details of the scenario please refer the registered online delhi police complaint on basis which your kind office is request to issue a revocation order in favour of SUJITH S NAIR by revoking falsely imposed 107 151 CrPC Section 116 6 CrPC and Code of Criminals 1973 on 24 06 2023 do note this act of SEM Ambedkar Nagar South Delhi will be considered as an act of human rights violation false misleading and misrepresentation which is against the Indian judicial law."

Dissatisfied with non-receipt of information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.05.2024. The FAA vide order dated 07.06.2024 observed that the PIO, South District had supplied requisite information on 14.05.2024, on the basis of report received from the ACP/CR Park and held as under:-

"The undersigned has carefully examined the contents of the online appeal, Online RTI request dated 13.04.2024, of the appellant and found that the PIO/SD has supplied requisite information on the basis of report received from, ACP/CR Park, Sub-Division, South District, New Delhi (Principal supplier of the information and deemed PIO u/s 5 (4) & 5 (5) under RTI Act, 2005) to the appellant within the stipulated time frame under the provision of RTI Act 2005. It is necessary to mention here that the PIO/SD can provide the information which is held or under his control and he (PIO) cannot generate/create the information under RTI Act, 2005. However, during the course of appeal, ACP/CR Park, Sub-Division, South District, New Delhi was again directed to provide the information on the instant appeal. Accordingly, the reply received from ACP/CR Park, Sub-Division, South District, New Delhi is attached herewith, which is self explanatory."

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 08.04.2025 has been received from the PIO/South District, Delhi Police reiterating the aforementioned facts. The Respondent has submitted a copy of the PIO's reply dated 14.05.2024 whereby the Appellant was informed that Complaint filed by the Appellant had been filed by the EO/SI Ved Prakash, and copy of the enquiry report was enclosed with the PIO's reply.

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. The Appellant sent emails dated 04.04.2025 and 14.04.2025 stating that he will not attend the hearing of the second appeals filed by him.

Appellant: Not present Respondent: ACP Dinesh Sharma - PS C R Park and HC Amit Singh - DCP Office, Hauz Khas were present during hearing.

The Respondent reiterated that response in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly sent to the Appellant. The Appellant was not present for the hearing.

Decision:

Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the Respondent, it is noted that appropriate response based on information available on record as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, had been duly furnished by the Respondent to the Appellant. The Respondent/PIO, South District, Delhi Police is directed to send a copy of the written submission with relevant annexures to the Appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within one week thereafter. In the given circumstances, since response sent by the Respondent is found legally appropriate, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act and the Appellant has chosen not to contest the case filed by him no further direction is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)