Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Kalpana Maheshwari vs Cbi on 24 March, 2026

                                  केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                               बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CBRUI/A/2025/626431

Kalpana Maheshwari                                           ... अपीलकताग/Appellant

                                  VERSUS
                                   बनाम
CPIO: Central Bureau of
Investigation, Lucknow                                   ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 31.03.2025            FA     : 17.05.2025              SA     : Nil

CPIO : 25.04.2025           FAO : 03.06.2025                 Hearing : 11.03.2026


Date of Decision: 17.03.2026
                                       CORAM:
                                 Hon'ble Commissioner
                               _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                      ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.03.2025 seeking information on the following points:

➢ I am writing to seek an update on the investigation into the tragic and untimely loss of my daughter, Anshu, who died on 9th February 2022 under deeply distressing circumstances. The case was registered under FIR dated 27th September 2023 and was subsequently transferred to the CBI as RC0532024S0005. As a grieving mother, I place my trust in the esteemed institution of the CBI to ensure that a fair and thorough investigation is conducted. However, despite the CIC/CBRUI/A/2025/626431 Page 1 of 6 passage of more than three years, I remain unaware of the current progress in bringing those responsible--the accused, his parents, and their associates--to justice.

Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, I respectfully formal request the following details regarding the status of the investigation:

1. Lookout Circular (LOC) • Has an LOC been issued against the accused, his parents, and their associates?

• If issued, could you kindly provide details on the date and current status of the LOC?

• If not issued, may I know if such a measure is under consideration?

2. Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) - against the accused, his parents, and their associates • Has an NBW been issued under Section 304-B IPC (Dowry Death)?

• If issued, could you please provide an update on its execution?

• If not, may I request information on whether this step is being pursued?

3. Interrogation & Investigation Progress • Have the accused, his parents, and their associates been interrogated as part of the investigation?

• If so, may I request details regarding the dates of their statements and findings?

• Has any forensic or psychological assessment been conducted to verify their claims?

4. Cybercrime Investigation - Status of My Daughter's Digital Evidence • Could you please provide an update on the retrieval and analysis of Anshu's social media accounts and emails?

• Have forensic examinations been conducted on the phones, laptops, and other digital devices of the accused, his parents, and their associates?

5. Insurance Payments - Status of Actions Taken • Could you kindly confirm whether steps have been taken to suspend any ongoing insurance payments to the accused while the investigation is ongoing?

6. Retrieval of Anshu's Digital Accounts • As Anshu's mother, I humbly request an update on the handover of her digital accounts and personal belongings to her parents.

7. Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) - Status of International Cooperation • Has any MLAT request been submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)?

• If submitted, may I kindly be informed of its current status and time/date of submission?

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.04.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"In this regard, it is intimated that vide notification No. F. No. 1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 of the Govt. of India, the Central Bureau of Investigation has been put at Sl. No. 23 of the Second Schedule to the Right to Information Act, 2005 as such CBI is exempted for providing information under section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.05.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 03.06.2025 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.

Hearing Proceedings & Decision:

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shivani Tiwari, Deputy Inspector General, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the matter pertains to human right violations and her daughter's death involves allegations of dowry harassment. She expressed concerns over the delay in progress of the investigation and prayed that the information sought in the RTI application be disclosed.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia endorsed their initial reply dated 25.04.2025. Further, the CPIO apprised the Commission about the factual position of the investigation in the matter and relied upon the following written submissions, reproduced as under:

"1. The Case No. RC053202450005 was re-registered at CBI, SCB, Lucknow on 04.10.2024 in compliance to the order dated 21.09.2024 of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 9932 of 2024 by taking over investigation of FIR No. 0383 of 2023 registered at PS Medical College, Meerut u/s 3048 of IPC against Shri Sumit Binnani s/o Shri Gobind Lal Chaturbhuj Binnani on the complaint of Smt. Kalpana Maheshwari (mother of Anshu Maheshwari)

2. It has been alleged in the FIR by the Complainant (Ms. Kalpana Maheshwari, Mother of the deceased) that Sumit Binnani killed his wife Ms. Anshu Maheshwari by burning her alive with gasoline at their residence at USA on 09.02.2022

3. Investigation conducted by CBI revealed that Bellevue Fire Investigation USA and Bellevue Police Department (BPD), USA, Det. T Ebersole conducted the investigation in the matter of death of Anshu Maheshwari and the concluded their investigation with the findings that incident in which Anshu died, was accidental and nothing incriminating was found against Sumit Binnani.

4. During investigation documents received from USA and other relevant documents were sent to AIIMS, New Delhi. The Medical Board of AllMs, New Delhi opined that manner of death of Anshu Maheshwari could be accidental.

5. During the CBI investigation, nothing came on record to substantiate the allegations of harassment/cruelty, demand of dowry on the part of her husband Sumit Binnani or his family members as alleged by the complainant. The allegation pertaining to motive behind killing of Anshu for huge monetary benefit to be received from the Facebook (Meta Inc.) post her death, also remain unsubstantiated considering that her death has been found to be accidental.

6. As accused Sumit Binnani is based in USA, he was got examined through MLAR while parents and friends/relatives of Sumit and Anshu, available in India were examined in person however, the allegations made by the Complainant against accused Sumit Binnani did not substantiate. MLAR with USA is closed now.

7. It is germane to mention that against the judgment & final order dated 21.09.2024 of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 9932 of 2024, an SLP (Crl.) No. 16470 of 2024 was filed by accused Sumit Binnani which was disposed of vide order 16.02.2026 by the Hon'ble Apex Court while observing that We are informed that the closure report has been filed by the CBI, upon completion of investigation.

2. If the complainant wishes to file a protest petition, she shall be at liberty to do so. Once such protest petition is filed, the Magistrate shall proceed to consider the same in accordance with law.

3. All contentions are left open to be urged before the Magistrate..........

8. In view of the above, closure Report has been filed on 27.01.26 before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad and the copy of the closure report and relied upon documents including document received through MLAR, AIIMS opinion report and electronic evidences, has been provided to the complainant on 10.03.26. Next date is fixed 30.05.26."

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, the issue regarding progress in stages of investigation by CBI cannot be examined by the Commission. Therefore, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामल ंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 17.03.2026 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोखररयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO, Special Crime Branch, Central Bureau Of Investigation, 5th Floor, CBI Office Complex Building, 7, Nawal Kishore Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh - 226010

2. Kalpana Maheshwari CIC/CBRUI/A/2025/626431 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)