Central Information Commission
Pradeep Aswal vs Delhi Police on 28 October, 2024
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/2023/630849
Shri Pradeep Aswal ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 23.10.2024
Date of Decision : 23.10.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.03.2023
PIO replied on : 12.04.2023
First Appeal filed on : 06.05.2023
First Appellate Order on : 31.05.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 22.06.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.03.2023 seeking information on following points:-
1. "Kindly inform the total number of Complaints/Information received by each Police Station in Delhi, w.e.f. 01.06.2022 till date, relating to offence of Rape defined as per amended Section 375 (b) i.e. A man is said to commit "rape" if he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person.
2. Kindly inform the total number of such Complaints/Information, as sought in Point No.1, which were converted in FIRs.
3. Kindly inform the total number of such Complaints/Information, as sought in Point No.1, which were not converted in FIRs.
4. Please provide reasons due to which the Complaints/Information, as mentioned at Point No.3, were not converted in FIR.
5. Whether the complaint of Rape, as mentioned above, can be closed by any Police Station on the ground of settlement of Complainant/Victim with the alleged Person?
6. How many such Complaints/Information were not converted into FIRs on the ground that the victim did not want to peruse her complaint, due to any reason?
7. Whether any Police Official is empowered to close such Complaints on the ground mentioned in Point No.6?
Page 1
8. For how many days such Complaints, mentioned at Point Nos.5 & 6, were kept pending by each Police Station in Delhi?."
The CPIO vide letter dated 12.04.2023 replied as under:-
Point No. 1 to 3,6 & 8:-In this regard, it is intimated that the requisite information asked by you is lengthy, time- consuming and requires diversion of manpower for preparation and compiling the same as no such type of record is maintained separately. Besides, you can inspect the permissible record under the RTI Act-2005 of Police Stations (Mangol Puri, Rani Bagh, Nangloi, Ranhola, Mundka, Sultan Puri, Raj Park, Paschim Vihar East, Paschim Vihar West and Nihal Vihar)of this District on any working day within 10 working days from the date of receipt of this letter between 11.00 AM to 04.00 PM under the provision of RTI Act-2005 for which necessary direction has been issued to concerned. After inspection, you may collect the requisite information/documents from RTI Cell/OD after giving specific detail of documents required under the provision of RTI Act-2005. Point No. 4:-The asked information does not come under the purview of information U/s 2(f) of RTI Act- 2005.
Point No. 5&7:-You are advised to go through the Law books such as IPC, CrPC in this regard."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.05.2023. The FAA vide order dated 31.05.2023 stated as under:-
"Contentions put forth by the appellant as well as reports of the PIO/Outer District, Delhi have been considered. After examination, it has been decided that as per fresh report received from All/ACSP/Sub. Divs./OD such type of data is not being maintained at P.S. level and it is not possible to provide the authentic information without the name of complainant, name of P.S. and such other references etc. Hence, the appellant is again hereby directed to approach at P.S level to gain such information/reply under RTI Act- 2005. However, his appeal is hereby disposed of."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent: HC Vinod Sehrawat The Appellant submitted that he is dissatisfied with the reply given by the CPIO.
The CPIO submitted that the requisite information asked by the Appellant is lengthy, time consuming and requires diversion of manpower for preparation and compiling the same as no such type of record is maintained separately.
Decision:
Page 2 Upon the perusal of the case records, the Commission finds that CPIO has given an appropriate reply to the Appellant. Hence the Commission does not find any merits for the intervention. Thus, the Appeal stands disposed off.
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 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)