Central Information Commission
Pardeep vs Delhi Police on 19 August, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/125631
Shri PARDEEP ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 14.08.2025
Date of Decision : 14.08.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.03.2024
PIO replied on : 10.04.2024
First Appeal filed on : 23.04.2024
First Appellate Order on : 17.05.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 08.08.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.03.2024 seeking information on following points:-
1. "In Delhi Police under which provisions of the law and under which circumstances can an Investigation Officer of Delhi Police, prepare Arrest Memo, Personal Search Memo, Seizure Memo, Disclosure Statement and Sketch of Case Property of a case while sitting in the Police Station where as in the Charge Sheet he mentions that the accused was arrested not in the Police Station but at the spot of incident/rescue which is about 30 kilometers away from the Police Station where the FIR was lodged?
2. In Delhi Police under which provisions of the law and under which circumstances can an Investigating Officer register an FIR of Kidnapping for Ransom when the accused person along with the victim is present in the Police Station prior to the registration of FIR?
3. An Investigation Officer of the Rank of Sub Inspector if retired, does it liberate him from the obligations of the criminal cases having been registered by him during his period of service that are pending trial?
4. What punishment is awarded by the department of Delhi Police to an Investigating Officer found guilty of making taise entry in the Daily Diary/General Diary (i.e. Rojnamcha) or in CCTNS?
5. An Investigation Officer of the Rank of Sub Inspector if retired but post retirement it is found that he had made false entry in the Daily Page 1 Diary/General Diary (i.e. Rojnamcha) or in the CCTNS, what punishment shall be awarded to him by the department of Delhi Police?
6. An Investigation Officer of the Rank of Sub-Inspector if retired but post retirement if found guilty of having registered a fake case what punishment shall be awarded to him by the department of Delhi Police?
7. Serving Delhi Police personnel of the rank of Constable, Head Constable, Sub Inspector, Inspector, Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police, found guilty of being a part of a fake case what punishment shall be awarded to them by the department of Delhi Police?
8. Is it mandatory for the Investigating Officer to mention the details in the Daily Diary/General Diary (i.e. Rojnamcha) or in the CCTNS, of the vehicle in which he along with other Police Personnel departs for a raid? What details of the vehicle is to be mentioned in such entries?
9. Failure of compliance of Section 52 CrPC in a criminal case, what action shall be taken against the Investigating Officer?
10. Is prosecution sanction of Section 39 Arms Acts required for a case registered under Section 30 Arms Act?
11. What should be the procedure to get an arms license verified from Jammu & Kashmir, in a situation when only the arms license number is known to the Investigation Officer and he does not know the court from where the arms license was issued?
12. Having known the arms license number issued from Jammu & Kashmir, what would be the procedure for the Investigating Officer to obtain the details, whether the license is having an all India permit and from which place and from which court?"
The CPIO-cum-Dy. Commissioner of Police(Hdqrs.-II), Delhi Police vide letter dated 10.04.2024 replied as under:-
"1, 2 & 8:-The information sought by you does not cover in the definition of 'information' as defined under section 2(f) of RTI Act-2005. 3 to 7 & 9:-The Departmental action is taken against the erring Police Officer as per rule under Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal, Rules-1980. The copy of this rule is already available in Public Domain.
10 to 12:-The information sought by you does not cover in the definition of 'information' as defined under section 2(f) of RTI Act-2005. Moreover, you may read Arms Act, 1959 in this regard."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.04.2024. The FAA vide order dated 17.05.2024 stated as under:-
"The undersigned has carefully considered the contents put-forth by the appellant in his first appeal dated 23.04.2024 (received on 29.04.2024), RTI application dated 12.03.2024 (received on 14.03.2024), reply by PIO/PHQ dated 10.04.2024 and other documents available on file, it is found that PIO/PHQ has provided point-wise information to the appellant after obtaining assistance from all concerned PIO's u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act-2005. However, in relief, PIO/PHQ is hereby directed to provide a fresh reply at point No. 3 & 8 Page 2 of the RTI application within a period of 04 weeks alongwith documents, if any free of cost, under the provisions of the RTI Act-2005.
Further, it is also clarified that as per O.M. No. 11/2/2008-IR dated 10.07.2018 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India, New Delhi, the PIO is required to supply the "material" in the form as held by the Public Authority and is not required to do research on behalf of the citizen to deduce/explain anything from the material and then supply it to him.
In view of the above orders, appeal is, therefore, disposed off."
Respondent, via letter, 14.06.2024, furnished a fresh reply for point no. 3 and 8 of the RTI Application in compliance to the First Appellate Authority Order to the Appellant, stating "In-compliance of First Appellate Authority/PHQ, order No. XXIV/29/Spl/Appeal No.95/24/Appl. |D-1250/24/21937-38/RTIPHQ, dated 17.05.2024, on the subject cited above, I am to provide afresh reply on point No. 3 & 8 is as under."
Etc..
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Further, written submission dated 06.08.2025, was provided by the respondent, stating, "Sir, With reference to your office Notice issued vide File No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/125631 dated 31.07.2025 scheduled for hearing before Shri Heeralal Samariya, Hon ble Chief Information Commissioner on 14.08.2025 at 01.05PM which was received in this office on 05.08.2025, on the subject cited above."
Etc....
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: ACP Atul Kalia and Inspector Rajesh Kumar are also participating in the hearing The Respondent submits that reply has been given. They further reiterate that a fresh reply to the RTI Application dated 14.06.2024 in compliance with the First Appellate Authority Order has been furnished to the Appellant.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent.
The Commission further directs the CPIO to furnish a copy of the written submission dated 06.08.2025 to the Appellant, free of cost via speed post Page 3 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission within a week thereafter. No further action lies.
The matter stands disposed of.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)