Anita Bhatt vs Delhi Police on 6 June, 2024

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Anita Bhatt vs Delhi Police on 6 June, 2024

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/2023/139064

Ms. ANITA BHATT                                             ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                 VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,                                                    ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police

Date of Hearing                       :   04.06.2024
Date of Decision                      :   04.06.2024
Chief Information Commissioner        :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :       21.01.2023
PIO replied on                    :       17.02.2023
First Appeal filed on             :       11.03.2023
First Appellate Order on          :       18.04.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :       25.09.2023

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.01.2023 seeking information on following points:-

"..1) Please provide me with the details date and time of any communication made to any accused that a complaint is pending and will be converted to FIR. Please provide the details from the case diary as well.

2) Please provide details that you have followed the Supreme court guidelines to serve notice under CRPC 41a to the accused. Please provide a copy of the acknowledgements of the notice provided by the accused.

a) Please provide me a copy of the acknowledgement given to the accused as per the delhi high court guidelines in the judgment name Amandeep singh johar vs state of NCT of delhi. Judgement delivered on 7 feb 2018 (Annexure A)

3) Please provide me with the details of the investigation done to verify the bills provided by the complainant under CrPc 91. Please provide confirmations from the merchant and from TIN, VAT and GST authorities as evidence that the bills were genuine."

Page 1 of 3

The CPIO vide letter dated 17.02.2023 replied as under:-

"In this regard, Charge sheet has been filed by vide RC No. 292/21/21 dated 19.03.2021 in case FIR No.309/18 U/s 498A/406/34 IPC on dt. 30.08.2018 (Police Station R.K. Puram) in Patiala House Court. Any information related to this case you may approach the concerned Court."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.03.2023. The FAA vide order dated 18.04.2023 stated as under:-

"The undersigned has carefully considered the points raised in the appeal, RTI application filed by the appellant, reply given by the CPIO (Addl. DCP)/SWD vide letter No. 1171(ID- 141)/RTI Cell(D-II)/SWD, dated 17.02.2023.It is observed that the RTI application dated 21.01.2023 submitted by the appellant was received in the office of CPIO/Addl.

DCP/SWD for providing the information and the information was provided to the appellant by the CPIO/SWD. After perusal of reply of PIO/SWD and relevant record on file, it is found that the PIO/SWD provided the relevant and available information to the appellant as per RTI Act, 2005. The undersigned found no reasons to interfere in the reply of the PIO/SWD. Therefore the reply of the PIO/SWD is upheld."

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

Written submission dated 27.05.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present through video-conferencing.

Respondent: Ms. Sanghmitra, ACP and Mr. Manoj, HC participated in the hearing.

The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished by the PIO till date. She further stated that the information sought is not a part of chargesheet. She requested to direct the PIO to furnish information as sought.

Ms Sanghmitra stated that the information sought is a part of chargesheet and a copy of chargesheet has already been furnished to the Appellant. She stated that all the documents related to case file has been submitted before the court.

Decision:

At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Appellant, 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.

Page 2 of 3

Upon perusal of records and examining the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the concerned PIO. The reply is self- explanatory and information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.

Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

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 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission