Central Information Commission
Adarsh Thombre vs Delhi Police on 25 July, 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/2024/631134
Shri Adarsh Thombre ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Delhi Police, Central District ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.07.2025
Date of Decision : 22.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.02.2024
PIO replied on : 18.04.2024
First Appeal filed on : 23.03.2024
First Appellate Order on : 27.05.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 21.07.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.02.2024 seeking information about legal opinion furnished regarding his complaint filed with the Central District and transferred to Cyber Police Station, Kamla Market in which FIR was not filed by the police. The police claimed that based on legal opinion sought from the prosecution branch, no FIR was registered. Hence, he sought the following information:-
1. A copy of all the documents/laws/rulebooks/instruction manuals/etc. that prescribe:
a. The conditions under which any complaint filed with the police regarding cognizable offences mandates a legal opinion, to decide whether the FIR should be filed or not.
2. On a question of whether an FIR should be filed or not regarding a police complaint that has a mention of multiple cognizable offences, who are the authorised to give legal opinion to the police, according to the law/rules/regulations/departmental rules/instruction manual/any other document or record.
a. Please also provide a copy of all the source documents that mentions this.
3. Whether any legal opinion was sought in my complaint or not. a. If yes, a copy of the official communication seeking legal opinion.
4. If the legal opinion was provided, a copy of the legal opinion that was furnished by experts in my complaint.
5. All the communication regarding my complaint, in written, electronic or any other form that took place between the following two parties:
Page 1 of 3a. police station/Investigation Officer/Station House Officer, PS Kamla Market/any other persons on their behalf b. with the prosecution branch and/or the person(s) who furnished legal opinion in my complaint.
6. All the communication regarding my complaint, in written, electronic or any other form that took place between all the officers and all hierarchies of Delhi Police, including but not limited to, investigating officer(s), Station House Officer(s), Assistant Commissioner of Police(s), Deputy Commissioner of Police(s), etc.
7. All the documents/evidence/annexures/statements/inquiry records/basically everything which were actually submitted to the prosecution branch/legal opinion team/individual person who is said to have given legal opinion that the FIR should not be filed.
8. All the documents/record that shows:
a. The basis and specific legal provisions under which the conclusion was made that the FIR should not be filed.
9. Following details of all the persons involved in the process of said legal opinion in my complaint.
a. Full names b. Designations and office addresses c. The role played by each of them in the said legal opinion regarding my complaint.
10. Any other documents/records that were sent by the prosecution branch/team/individual to the police station/investigation officer/Station House Officer who was responsible for giving legal opinion in my complaint, regarding my complaint. etc."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.03.2024.
The PIO, Central District, Delhi Police vide letter dated 18.04.2024 replied as under:-
"1. Taking legal opinion is the privileged communications between two agencies and copy cannot be given under RTI Act.
2. Taking legal opinion in a particular matter it depends upon the facts and circumstance of the matter. It is a privileged communication between two agencies and copy cannot be given to the applicant.
3. Legal opinion was taken from the Prosecution branch on the complaint of the present applicant.
a) Taking legal opinion is the privileged communications between two agencies.
4. As point number 3 a.
5. As above point number 3 a.
6. Copy enclosed.
7. As point number 3 a.
8. As point number 3 a.
9. As point number 3 a.
10. As point number 3 a. Etc."
In regard to his first appeal, the FAA vide order dated 27.05.2024 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 2 of 3Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 15.07.2025 has been received from the Appellant furnishing detailed background of the financial crime committed against him and the alleged failure of the police to even register a case based on legal opinion obtained by the department from the prosecution branch.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Not available on telephone Respondent: SI Subhash Chand - RTI GD; ACP Subhash Malik and SI Naveen were present during hearing.
The Respondent stated that the Appellant's case was of civil nature hence no FIR had been filed in it. The Appellant had in fact approached the Court of CJM, Central Delhi and action taken report stating the same facts had been submitted by the Cyber Cell of Delhi Police before the Court.
The Appellant had submitted a request dated 15.07.2025 before the Commission to be heard through audio conference, but despite repeated attempts, he could not be contacted over telephone.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the instant case reveals that the Respondent had furnished information available on records, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, in terms of the provisions of the Act. Considering the fact that response as available on records had been duly furnished by the PIO, which is within the precincts of the RTI Act, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of as such.
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)