Central Information Commission
Vijay Laxmi vs Delhi Police on 22 March, 2022
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/140926
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/139374
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/127518
Smt. Vijay Laxmi ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Delhi Police, Central District ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: ACP Vidushi Kaushik, Karol Bagh
Shri Subhash Chander - SI
Date of Hearing : 21.03.2022
Date of Decision : 22.03.2022
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
140926 30.07.2020 29.08.2020 05.09.2020 23.09.2020 23.12.2020
139374 05.09.2020 23.09.2020 01.10.2020 05.11.2020 14.12.2020
127518 16.02.2021 23.03.2021 25.03.2021 - 12.07.2021
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/140926 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated30.07.2020 seeking information on the following 04 points:-Page 1 of 5
The PIO, Central District vide letter dated 29.08.2020 replied as under:-
The enquiry report signed by SI Sanjay Kumar, PS Prasad Nagar attached with the PIO's reply reveals that after enquiry, it was concluded that the complaint relates to a civil dispute regarding ancestral property of the Appellant. Hence the complaint was filed.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.09.2020. The FAA/Dy. Commissioner of Police vide letter dated 23.09.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/139374 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.09.2020 seeking information on 06 points regarding her complaint dated 09.08.2020 before SHO PS Prasad Nagar, Karol Bagh:-
Page 2 of 5Etc. The PIO, Central District vide letter dated 23.09.2020 replied annexing information received from ACP, Karol Bagh as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.10.2020. The FAA/DCP, Central District vide order dated 05.11.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 3 of 5(3) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/127518 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.02.2021 seeking information on the following 04 points:-
The PIO, Central District vide letter dated 23.03.2021 replied as under:-
The Enquiry report reveals that a civil suit has been filed by the Appellant in the Tis Hazari Court regarding the property dispute.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.03.2021. In response to the first appeal, the APIO, Central District vide letter dated 09.04.2021 replied as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are present for hearing held through Page 4 of 5 video conference and deliberations between the parties reveal that the Appellant and her nephew - Shri Sandeep and his wife Shivani have been involved in a dispute regarding their claim over the house no. 11823, Gali No. 7, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh. Cross FIRs have been filed by both parties against each other, FIR no. 319/2020 dated 16.12.2020 under Section 354A/354B/509/34 IPC has been filed on the statement of Mrs. Shivani, while FIR No. 320/2020 under Section 354A/379/506/509/34 IPC has been filed on the statement of the Appellant. The cases have eventually reached the Tis Hazari Court for adjudication and copies of all relevant documents viz. copies of FIRs and enquiry report etc. have been furnished to the Appellant. It is the contention of the Appellant that the FIRs have been filed using incorrect provisions of the IPC.
Decision:
Upon examination of the facts of the case, it is noted that all the three appeals filed by the Appellant relate to the same cause of action viz. the dispute between the Appellant and her nephew regarding their respective claims over their ancestral property. Hence the appeals are hereby decided by a common decision.
It is noted that in all the three cases the Respondent has furnished information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act. No legal infirmity is found in the replies, in so far as RTI Act is concerned. In so far as the Appellant's contention about application of incorrect provisions of law in registration of the FIRs is concerned, clearly it falls outside the ambit of the RTI Act to adjudicate the correctness of the FIR. The Appellant is at liberty to approach appropriate legal forum in this regard.
In the light of the above facts, no further action is deemed necessary in the above mentioned three appeals, since action mandated under the RTI Act has already been completed by the Respondent.
The appeals are disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 5