Central Information Commission
Gaurav Yadav vs Delhi Police on 14 July, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/646090
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/645694
Shri Gaurav Yadav ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 13.07.2021
Date of Decision : 14.07.2021
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 2 nd Appeal
No. on received on
646090 15.03.2019 12.04.2019 16.04.2019 14.05.2019 20.07.2019
645694 15.03.2019 08.04.2019 16.04.2019 14.05.2019 16.07.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/646090 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.03.2019 seeking information on the following 17 points:-
1.Kindly provide me the documentary evidences / bank statements / Income Tax receipts for the transaction of Rs. 1100500 Lakhs cash amount as stated by Anchal states of giving with date time and place .
2.Provide information whether complainant Anchal Yadav was living with her husband and children in Etawah (Uttar Pradesh) or Alwar (Rajasthan.
3.Provide information Gaurav had furnished discharge summary of Jain Hospital Delhi 4.10.2011 which Anchal had lied in the FIR about aborting of child what action you have taken by IO .
5.Reply in YES or No that Mrs Devaki Yadav mother in law of complainant was resident of House N-131-C friends colony Etawah (UP )
6.Reply in YES or No that Sh.Balram Singh Yadav Father in law of complainant was resident of House N-131-C friends colony Etawah (UP ).
7.Please supply me certified copies of the documentary evidences collected by the I.O before fixing my family into the case who were living in Etawah that is 350 km away from Alwar Rajasthan .Page 1 of 4
8.Reply in YES or No that do investigating IO have any evidence in support of anything (demand or atrocities) happened at Etawah in laws house based on FIR.
Etc. (Queries quoted verbatim) The APIO /ACP, North East Distt., vide letter dated 12.04.2019 replied as under
Dissatisfied with the response received from the APIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.04.2019. The FAA/DCP, North East Distt., vide order dated 14.05.2019 upheld the reply of the APIO Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/645694 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.03.2019 seeking information on the following 15 points regarding FIR no. 0790/2015 filed by Anchal Yadav:-
1. Provide As per the complainant statement, Ms. Anchal left matrimonial house Alwar on 13.03.15 due to harassment, please supply name of city, address and time of the incident.
2.Kindly inform me if there were any injuries reported by the complainant for this incident. If Yes, kindly supply me relevant medical documents MLC proof.
3.Reply in YES or No per allegation by complainant that 13.3.2015 happened at Alwar why Neither Solanki hospital & nor Sania Hospital & complainant informed local police station Alwar.
4. Provide certified information based on FIR Anchal Yadav last city of residence with her Husband and two children was Alwar
5.Reply in YES or No information based on FIR she was living in Alwar since 2013.
6.Reply in YES or No information Anchal Yadav lives with her husband and elder son prior to Alwar in Gurgaon.
7.Reply in YES or No information based on FIR prior to Gurgaon Anchal Yadav was living in Vasundhara Ghaziabad with her husband and elder son.
8.Provide certified information did Ushmanpur police station received any Domestic Incident Report from protection officer in matter of domestic violence Anchal Yadav Vs Gaurav Yadav Sanshkar Ashram Dilshad Garden Delhi.Page 2 of 4
9.Reply in YES or No information as per Interrogation report dated the address of Gaurav Yadav dated 08.01.2016 was House No-16 Alkapuri Alwar.
Etc. (Queries quoted verbatim) The APIO /ACP, North East Distt., vide letter dated 08.04.2019 replied as under
Dissatisfied with the response received from the APIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.04.2019. The FAA/DCP, North East Distt., vide order dated 14.05.2019 upheld the reply of the APIO Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has also been received from the Appellant dated nil and from the CPIO cum Addl DCP North East District, Delhi Police dated 09.07.2021 in both the matters and the same have been taken on record.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that therepondent resorted to blanket denial of information citing section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 without giving point wise response. Furthermore, since investigation in the matter was completed on 11.12.2018 i.e., prior to the date of filing of the instant RTI application, the exemption u/s 8 (1) (h) was not justified.
The Respondent represented by Shri Bachchu Singh, ACP, North East District participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that the information was denied u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act since the documents pertaining to FIR no 790/15 have been sent to the Tis Hazari Court where the matter is pending and the Appellant may approach the Court to obtain the same.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that exemption u/s 8 (1) (h) has been wrongly claimed by the Respondent since by their own admission, the investigation in the matter has been completed and FIR filed before the Court. Furthermore, while claiming exemption u/s 8 (1) (h), the CPIO needs to justify as to how disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation. Thus, the Commission directs the FAA and DCP, North East District to re-examine the Page 3 of 4 first appeal and pronounce a reasoned/ speaking order after granting an opportunity of fair hearing to the Appellant and disclose information available on record to the extent possible in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The above mentioned direction should be complied with by 31.08.2021 under intimation to the Commission. The Commission also observes that for redressal of his grievance regarding the matrimonial dispute, the Appellant should approach an appropriate forum.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4