Central Information Commission
Sikha vs Ut Of Puducherry on 18 February, 2026
CIC/UTPON/A/2024/632560
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/UTPON/A/2024/632560
Sikha ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
Superintendent of Police-
(East), O/o. the Inspector of ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Police
UT of Puducherry,
Puducherry
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 04.04.2024 FA : 14.05.2024 SA : 29.07.2024
CPIO : 02.05.2024 FAO : 21.06.2024 Hearing : 13.02.2026
Date of Decision: 13.02.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Copy of the Complaint given by me on 15.3.2023 or later.
2. Date and Time of the Complaint.
3. GIST of the Complaint.Page 1 of 8
CIC/UTPON/A/2024/632560
4. Prayer in the Complaint? Executed? If not give justification.
5. Total money cheated by Respondents from Complainant with details?
6. Money promised/assured by Respondents to Complainant on Maturity date?
7. Action taken on the Complaint.
8. Complainant Name and Address, Cell No.
9. Respondents Names and Addresses (Residence and Office), Cell No's.
10. Place of occurrence of the offence with Address, Date and Time..etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 02.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under
:-
1. No complaint received on received on 15.03.2023 the same later one complaint received 07.04.2023 received is yet to be traced.
2. 07.04.2023 at 22.22 hrs entered in GD.
3. Not Applicable...etc.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.05.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 21.06.2024 observed as under :-
3. While perusing the reply, it is found that the reply was furnished by SHO, Muthialpet PS, vide letter No.08/MPS/RTI/2024 dated 02.05.2024. The designated PIO, i.e., the Superintendent of Police(East), is the responsible authority for furnishing reply to the applicant under RTI Act. Therefore, the PIO has been directed to review the reply furnished by SHO, Muthialpet, PS and furnish relevant reply to the applicant immediately.
4. As no other information is available with this authority, the first appeal filed by the appellant stands disposed off.Page 2 of 8
CIC/UTPON/A/2024/632560
4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 29.07.2024.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Ms. Shruthi Vyaragatti- participated in the hearing through video- conference.
5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the information sought has not been provided to her till date. She stated that if her case was beyond the jurisdiction of Respondent Public Authority then on what basis her case was closed by the Respondent. A written submission of the Appellant has been received from the Appellant in this regard. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..Background of the Case:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 04.04.2024 seeking information regarding a complaint filed by her on 15.03.2023 (acknowledged by Police on 07.04.2023) regarding a cheating/fraud matter involving "Sun Gold Farm". The CPIO initially provided a misleading reply on 02.05.2024. Following a First Appeal, the First Appellate Authority (SSP L&O) noted the deficiency and directed the CPIO to review the reply. The CPIO provided a revised reply on 04.07.2024, which remains incomplete, contradictory, and evasive.
Submissions regarding Denial of Information: The Appellant submits that the CPIO has failed to provide substantive information by casually using the phrase "Not Applicable" for specific queries regarding public records that admittedly exist.
Contradiction regarding availability of records (Query 1 vs Query 21): In reply to Query 1 (Copy of Complaint), the CPIO stated: "received on 07.04.2023 the same yet to be traced". However, in reply to Query 21 Page 3 of 8 CIC/UTPON/A/2024/632560 (Conclusion of Enquiry), the CPIO stated: "on 23.05.23 the enquiry was closed... and NC vide No.067907 was issued". Submission: It is legally untenable for the CPIO to claim the complaint file is "yet to be traced" while simultaneously quoting the specific NC number, date of closure, and the specific reason for closure ("Civil in Nature"). If the NC report exists (and was attached), the complaint file exists. The refusal to provide the copy of the original complaint and the full enquiry file based on it being "untraced" is misleading and malafide.
Denial of Enquiry Details (Queries 19, 20, & 22): The Appellant sought copies of statements, evidence collected, and the Case Diary/General Diary (GD) extracts regarding the investigation (Queries 19, 22). The CPIO replied: "Not applicable". Submission: The CPIO admits in Query 21 that an "enquiry was conducted" and determined that "no such Sun Gold Farm company functioning in police station limit". If an enquiry was conducted to establish that a company does not exist, there must be a General Diary (GD) entry recording the movement of the Investigating Officer (IO) and their findings. A police enquiry cannot be conducted in a vacuum without documentation. Denial of these GD entries/Investigation notes under the guise of "Not applicable" is a violation of the RTI Act.
Denial of Action Taken Details (Query 13 & 15): The Appellant requested the CSR copy (Query 13) and the Investigation/Enquiry report (Query 15). The CPIO replied: "Not applicable". Submission: While the CPIO eventually provided a one-page "Report in Non-Cognizable Offences" (NC No. 067907), they failed to provide the underlying enquiry report mentioned in Query 15. The NC receipt is merely a conclusion; the Appellant is entitled to the reasons and findings (the enquiry report) that led the police to conclude the matter was "Civil in Nature" despite the allegation of cheating/fraud.
Page 4 of 8CIC/UTPON/A/2024/632560 Missing Statutory Information: The CPIO failed to answer Query 30 regarding the applicable IPC sections for the alleged offenses, stating "All define in Indian Penal Code". As a public authority, the Police are expected to inform a citizen whether the specific acts described (Cheating/Fraud) constitute cognizable or non-cognizable offenses under their jurisdiction, rather than directing the citizen to read the penal code.
Prayer: In light of the above, the Appellant prays that the Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to: 1. Direct the CPIO to provide a certified copy of the General Diary (GD) extracts from 07.04.2023 to 23.05.2023 relating to the enquiry of the Appellant's complaint. 2. Direct the CPIO to provide the specific Enquiry Report or IO's noting that details the verification done to conclude "No such Sun Gold Farm company functioning," as mere assertion without record is insufficient. 3. Impose penalty on the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act for providing contradictory information (claiming the file is "untraced" while quoting its closure details)..."
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a point-wise reply has been duly provided to the Appellant. He averred that no complaint dated 15.03.2023 was received in their office. However, a complaint dated 07.04.2023 was received and information related to the Complaint has been provided to the Appellant. A written submission dated 10.02.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..It is submitted the written submission of the Superintendent of Police (East) in the capacity of the PIO is placed in respect of the 2nd appeal preferred by Tmt. Sikha as noted in above reference.
With due respect, at the outset, It is respectfully submitted that the Respondent Public Authority had acted strictly in accordance with the provisions mandated under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and there has been no wilful denial of information to the Appellant.Page 5 of 8
CIC/UTPON/A/2024/632560 The RTI application dated 04.04.2024 was received by the Public Authority on 06.04.2024 and the information available on record was furnished vide letter dated 02.05.2024 by the component officer.
Subsequently, another copy of the reply was also forwarded through registered post on 23.05.2024 to ensure service upon the applicant, which demonstrates the fair dinkum compliance of the Public Authority.
It is submitted that the queries raised by the applicant consisted largely of investigative records, third-party personal information, financial records of private persons, investigation notes, evidentiary materials, documentary evidences and other sensitive operational details, many of which were either:
not available on record, not generated due to the civil nature of the complaint, or Exempt from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(g), 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The available factual information was per contra supplied. The records show that a complaint dated 07.04.2023 was entered in the General Diary, enquiry was conducted, no criminal offence was made out within the jurisdiction. Hence, the matter was treated as civil in nature and enquiry was closed accordingly, by issuing N.C, by narrating the factum of the complaint without any bias. Therefore, the allegation of refusal or suppression of information is totally fallacious.
The Public Authority has provided all information available in its custody and control, as mandated under Section 2(f) and Section 7 of the RTI Act.
It is further submitted that the First Appellate Authority, after examining the matter, directed review and supply of available information, and thereafter disposed of the appeal, vide Order, dated 21/06/2024, which crystal-clearly establishes procedural compliance on the part of the Department.
The present Second Appeal appears to be only out of pure frustration, with the outcome of the police enquiry and not from any actual denial of accessible Page 6 of 8 CIC/UTPON/A/2024/632560 information under the RTI Act. The RTI mechanism cannot be used for grievance redressal or for compelling creation of information, which is not available on records..."
Decision:
7. At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant has sought information related to her complaint regarding a cheating/fraud matter involving 'Sun Gold Farm'. It is noted that Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the custodian of information. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमे श) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26107048 Page 7 of 8 CIC/UTPON/A/2024/632560 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Superintendent of Police-(East), O/o. the Inspector of Police, Muthialpet Police Station, M.G.Road, Ramakrishna Nagar, Puducherry-605003.
2 Sikha Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)