Central Information Commission
Deepti Somani vs Delhi Police on 3 March, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No.CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/100269
Date of Hearing : 28.02.2017
Date of Decision : 28.02.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Deepti Somani
Respondent : PIO/Addl. CP-I, North West
Delhi Police
Through:
Shri Manmohan, ACP/PIO
Ms. Kamal Duggal, Inspector/I.O.
Shri Sunny Kumar, SI
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.07.2016
PIO replied on : 30.09.2016
First Appeal filed on : 03.09.2016
First Appellate Order on : 04.10.2016
2nd Appeal/complaint received on :
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 22.07.2016, the appellant sought information with regard to action taken on his complaint FIR No.170/16, P.S. Ashok Vihar. The appellant, in the background of the case, explains that accused who is the husband of the complainant had forcible sex and captured the act in his mobile and is threatening to upload the video on net. In this regard the appellant sought information under 16 points. PIO vide letter dated 29.09.2016 furnished point wise information to the appellant. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal. The FAA vide order dated 04.10.2016 found that the correct and complete point wise information, on the basis of report received from SHO/Ashok Vihar through ACP/Ashok Vihar/NWD, Delhi has already been provided to the appellant. The FAA further added that upon the appellant's appeal, a fresh report was obtained again from SHO/Ashok Vihar and the same was furnished to the appellant.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both the parties are present and heard. The appellant is represented through Shri S.S. Somani. It is the grievance of the appellant that pursuant to registration of FIR No. 170/16 at Police Station Ashok Vihar, Delhi police is not investigating the matter diligently. The auth. rep. of the appellant submitted that initially Section 66 & 67 of the IT Act were added to the FIR but now the police not investigating under the aforesaid provisions. Per contra, the Investigation Officer of the case states that the aforesaid provisions were added to the FIR but since then no incriminating evidence qua the aforesaid provisions was found despite rigorous investigation. She states that the investigation is yet not concluded and the appellant had denied accompanying Police in carrying out raids to recover any recording device used in aid of commission of alleged offence. Upon a query, the I.O. states that since investigation is yet not complete hence, it would be premature to comment as to whether the accused shall be prosecuted under which provisions of law.
Decision:
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission finds that adequate reply has been furnished to the appellant particularly when, the investigation is yet not concluded. The decision of FAA is upheld. The Appellant's has other efficacious remedies under the law of land to mitigate her apprehensions of a botched investigation. The appellant can approach the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate seeking intervention in process of investigation; if so advised. The sufficiency of investigation is the discretion of IO under the supervisory control of Court. This Commission is not the appropriate forum for grant of reliefs prayed for in garb of information. No further direction is required in the matter.
The Appeal is disposed of.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer