Central Information Commission
Priti Poddar vs Delhi Police on 11 October, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067
F. No.CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/132998
F. No.CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/124911
Date of Hearing : 25.09.2018
Date of Decision : 10.10.2018
Appellant/Complainant : PritiPoddar
Respondent : CPIO
Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I,
East District
Through: Sh. Rishi Dev - ACP,HQ
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.03.2017& 04.01.2018
PIO replied on : 21.04.2017& 02.02.2018
First Appeal filed on : 19.04.2017& 15.02.2018
First Appellate Order on : 03.03.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 04.05.2017& 19.04.2018
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/132998 Vide RTI application dated 17.03.2017, the appellant soughtcertified copy of complaint of SI Indrapal Singh, CAW Cell regarding fraud committed on mobile no. 9811348997 for blockade of Paytm Account. PIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, vide letter dated 10.02.2018 stated that the as per report received from I/C Cyber Cell/East Distt. Appellant's complaint is pending enquiry. Therefore, asked information cannot be provided as the same is exempted u/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act 2005. Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal. FAA/East District vide letter dated 16.04.2018 directed to reconsider the RTI application of the appellant and provide fresh reply on the RTI application within the 10 working days. In compliance of FAO, the PIO/A.DCP, East District vide letter dated 23.04.2018 furnished information as under:-
1 to 3 - The copy of complaint dated 22.09.2017 given in Cyber Cell/East Distt. is enclosed herewith. The complaint is pending investigation with I/C Cyber Cell/East Distt. Hence, the remaining information cannot be provided u/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act 2005.
Still aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission. Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present during hearing and deliberations between them reveal thatPaytm Account of the appellant was blocked on a false complaint about fraud committed on mobile number of the appellant. Hence the appellant had sought information about the complaint so filed against her by SI Indrapal Singh. The appellant was not satisfied with the information furnished by the Respondent so far and seeks to know the reason for blocking of her Paytm account on the basis of a frivolous and false complaint. Respondent has submitted during the hearing that appellant has not been subjected to any action/interrogation on the basis of the complaint of SI Indrapal Singh.
Decision:
After hearing submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the Respondent must furnish a Revised Reply to the appellant clearly stating the premise for blocking of her Paytm, the cause which led to the action of blocking of her Paytm account must be clearly indicated in the reply, notwithstanding pendency of the investigation. The Revised Reply shall be furnished within one week of receipt of this order, and a compliance report of these directions shall be filed before the Commission by 22.10.2018. Needless to observe that, if and when the appellant is proceeded against on the basis of the complaint, she must be provided complete information about documents/other evidences being used against her.
CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/124911 Vide RTI application dated 04.01.2018, the appellant sought information regarding SI Inderpal and details of cases of CAW Cell/East Distt. CPIO/East vide letter dated 02.02.2018 provided the requisite available point-wise information to the appellant. Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal. FAA/DCP/East District vide letter dated 03.03.2018 upheld the reply of PIO. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present and appellant has briefly submitted that she suffered sexual harassment at workplace and when she approached the Crime Against Women Cell, she was harassed by SI Indrapal Singh. She filed a complaint against the SI Incharge of the CAW Cell who himself was a perpetrator of injustice and harassed the women who approached the CAW Cell seeking justice.She filed the instant RTI application seeking 18 queries about the said Sub Inspector Indrapal Singh to bring his unbecoming conduct in front of his superior officers.
Respondent present during the hearing submitted that they have provided the available information and shall further furnish all the information as directed.
Decision:
After hearing the parties present during hearing, the Commission directs the Respondent to furnish a Revised Reply providing clear and precise information against queries number 8,9,10,11 & 16 and an affirmative or negative response in "YES/NO" against queries number 13 and 17. This Revised Reply shall be provided to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
The appeals are disposed of as such.
(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