Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Anupama Garg vs Delhi Police on 15 September, 2021

                               के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                           बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                      Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई द ली,
                             ली New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/159712

Smt. Anupama Garg                                            ...   अपीलकता /Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Delhi Police, Rohini District                     ...   ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: ACP Vipin Kumar; Inspector Kamal
Duggal and Inspector Rajesh Shukla

Date of Hearing                      :    15.09.2021
Date of Decision                     :    15.09.2021
Chief Information Commissioner       :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on              :   22.07.2019
PIO replied on                        :   20.08.2019
First Appeal filed on                 :   23.08.2019
First Appellate Order on              :   20.09.2019
2ndAppeal/complaint received on       :   11.12.2019

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.07.2019 seeking information on the following points:-

The Appellant had filed an annexure dated 09.08.2017, which reveals that the Appellant sought information about a false complaint filed against her husband- Shri Purushottam Garg by Smt. Pooja Bharadwaj and her family. It appears to be a counter complaint filed against the Appellant's husband who had complained about illegal construction carried out by Smt. Pooja Bharadwaj and her family.

The PIO, Rohini District replied vide letter dated 20.08.2019 and stated that the applicant has not mentioned any relationship with the complaint. Hence, the information could not be provided as per under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.08.2019. The FAA/DCP, Rohini District stated as under:-

"........... a fresh report has again been obtained from SHO/Vijay Vihar and HAC/RD, copies of the said report are being provided to the appellant with this order......"

A report furnished by SHO/Vijay Vihar and HAC/RD is as under:-

Another report dated 07.02.2018 from ASI Narinder Kumar Dogra is also found on record providing a gist of the proceedings as below:

Sir, It is submitted that a case vide FIR No. 996/17 U/s 354A IPC was registered at PS Vijay Vihar on the complaint of Smt. Pooja Bhardwaj wherein she alleged that on 02/08/17 he made a PCR call regarding misbehaving and bad activity by the alleged Purshotam Garg. During investigation, on 04/08/17 her statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. recorded by the concern court. After recorded her statement section 354 IPC added in the said case. Accused Purshotam also interrogated (41A Cr.P.C.) at length. After completion the investigation, charge sheet has already been put in court on 27/01/18. Hence, the said complaint may please be filed.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through video conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are present for hearing and Respondent claimed that though initially the information had not been provided by the PIO, pursuant to the FAA's order, all available information existing on records and permissible under the law had been provided.

Appellant on the other hand contended that information about Pooja Bharadwaj's FIR was provided to her while no information about the complaint filed by her has been provided.

Deliberations between parties reveal that the instant case arises from a dispute between the families of the Appellant and that of Pooja Bharadwaj. The Appellant and her husband had complained about unauthorised construction carried out by Smt. Pooja Bharadwaj and her family. It is the Appellant's case that in retaliation, Smt. Pooja Bharadwaj filed an FIR against the Appellant's husband invoking Section 354 of the IPC. This was followed by another complaint filed by the Appellant against Smt. Pooja Bharadwaj which gave rise to the queries as sought vide the instant RTI Application. Considering the common premise of the complaints, the complaints filed by both parties were linked and action as per law had been taken by the Respondent. However since the complaint filed by Smt. Pooja Bharadwaj, invoked Section 354 of IPC, information about the same was not provided to the Appellant considering the sensitivity of the information.

Decision:

Upon examining the records of the above appeals and after hearing averments of the parties, the Commission finds that Respondent has explained the cause of denial of information initially by the PIO, invoking section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. It is also noted that pursuant to the FAA's order, all available information had been provided by the Respondent to the Appellant. The Respondent has also explained that both the complaints filed by the parties have been linked and action as deemed expedient under law had been taken. The investigation with respect to the complaints have been finalized and case has been filed before the Rohini Court, where it is pending trial.

In the light of the above facts, the Commission finds that information available on records with the Respondent, has already been provided to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the Act. No further interference is warranted in this case.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई.

वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4