Central Information Commission
Amit Meharia vs Delhi Police on 5 January, 2021
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/169836
CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/169838
CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/169842
CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/169840
Shri Amit Meharia ... अपीलकता/Appellant
Heard through audio conference
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, O/o Dy. Commissioner of Police ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Sh. Mahavir Singh Panwar - ACP-
SPUWAC
Date of Hearing : 05.01.2021
Date of Decision : 05.01.2021
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 FAO Complaint/Second
Nos. on dated
Appeal dated Appeal dated
dated
169836 28.06.2018 12.07.2018 08.08.2018 - 28.11.2018
169838 28.06.2018 - 08.08.2018 - 28.11.2018
169842 28.06.2018 - 08.08.2018 - 28.11.2018
169840 26.06.2018 - 08.08.2018 - 28.11.2018
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/169836 The Appellant got married to Smt. Abhilasha Malhotra on 10.12.2017 but marriage was not registered in accordance with provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Appellant filed a matrimonial suit being Mat. Suit No. 1759/2018 before the District Judge, Alipore on 26.06.2018 seeking decree of nullity of marriage on the ground of fraud. In this factual background the Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.06.2018 seeking copy of the complaint dated Page 1 of 4 18.05.2016 filed by Abhilasha Malhotra before CAW, Delhi against her erstwhile husband Sh. Pranav Kumar; steps undertaken pursuant to the her complaint, status of the complaint and copy of the investigation report.
The PIO, Dy. Commissioner of Police, SPUWAC, PTS Malviya Nagar vide letter dated 12.07.2018 [pg. 51]replied as under:-
"Copy of requisite documents can't be provided as per Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 as disclosure of same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and there is no larger public interest in disclosing the information."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.08.2018. On perusal of the Second Appeal, it is seen that the First Appellate Authority has passed order dated 12.09.2018, copy whereof has not been placed on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing Vide supplementary affidavit dated 07.12.2020, the Appellant enclosed the order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the FAA upholding the order of the PIO and denying disclosure of information U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/169838 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.06.2018 seeking information on whether any complaint was lodged by Abhilasha Malhotra u/s 154 CrPC and Section 498A, 406, 377/34 of IPC between January 2013 to December 2015; steps undertaken pursuant to the complaint; status of complaint and copy of the investigation report.
The PIO replied vide letter dated 12.07.2018 refusing disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act (not enclosed, mentioned in the Grounds for First Appeal). Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.08.2018. On perusal of the Second Appeal, it is seen that the First Appellate Authority has also passed order dated 12.09.2018 but the same is not enclosed with the Second Appeal.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing Vide supplementary affidavit dated 07.12.2020, the Appellant enclosed the order of the FAA dated 12.09.2018 concurring with the CPIO's response.
Page 2 of 4(3) CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/169842 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.06.2018 seeking whether any complaint was lodged before CAW, Delhi by Abhilasha Malhotra. In this respect, he has sought copy of the complaint lodged, copy of the office order for the enquiry, name of the members of the enquiry committee, copy of enquiry report and final decision of the competent authority for the period between Jan 2013 to Dec 2015.
The PIO replied vide letter dated 12.07.2018 refusing disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act (not enclosed, mentioned in the Grounds for First Appeal). Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.08.2018. On perusal of the Second Appeal, it is seen that the First Appellate Authority has also passed order dated 12.09.2018 but the same is not enclosed with the Second Appeal.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(4) CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/169840 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.06.2018 seeking information regarding complaint lodged on 04.01.2016 by Abhilasha Malhotra. In this respect, he has sought copy of the complaint lodged, copy of the office order for the enquiry, name of the members of the enquiry committee etc. The PIO vide letter dated 12.07.2018 (not enclosed) furnished the information. Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.08.2018. On perusal of the Second Appeal, it is seen that the First Appellate Authority has passed order dated 12.09.2018 but the same is not enclosed with the Second Appeal.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A detailed written submission has been received from Appellant, vide letter dated 27.10.2020 wherein the background of the matter and contentions raised in Second Appeal were substantiated.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties participated in the hearing through audio conference and Appellant contended that he has sought the above information invoking the RTI Act in order to corroborate his pending matrimonial suit and also to reveal the Page 3 of 4 machinations of Smt. Abhilasha Malhotra and her family to deceive and defraud men into marrying her.
The Respondent from Delhi Police stated that on the basis of complaint filed by Smt. Abhilasha Malhotra on 26.06.2018, a case (bearing no. 78/18) has been prepared and is ready to be submitted before the Dwarka Court, within the next fortnight. The Appellant may obtain necessary documents from the Court, in terms of the practices and procedures of the Court. However, till the matter is filed before the Court, information held by the Respondent - Delhi Police cannot be divulged, as already stated by the concerned PIOs.
Decision:
Upon hearing the averments of both parties and after perusal of the detailed submissions filed by the Appellant, the Commission finds no infirmity with the view of the Respondent in denial of information invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. During the course of hearing, the Appellant raised concerns that his estranged wife may file documents to his disadvantage and hence he wanted to prepare his defence through the documents sought in RTI applications. He is reminded that once the matter is before the Trial Court, he shall get ample opportunity to seek from the Court, all necessary documents used against him, to defend his case.
Under the circumstances, the Commission hereby directs the Respondent to provide a comprehensive status report about the complaints filed by Smt. Abhilasha Malhotra before the Delhi Police, upon submitting the matter before the concerned Court. The Respondent shall provide this status report to the Appellant within three weeks of receipt of this order and the Respondent shall submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission by 31.01.2021. It is made clear that non-adherence of these directions shall attract penal action as per law.
The above four appeals are on a common subject matter and hence are decided by a common order.
Y. K. Sinha ( 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 4 of 4