Central Information Commission
Ashok Kumar Dev vs Delhi Police on 6 December, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमार्ग, मुनिरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2022/625830
CIC/DEPOL/A/2022/633556
Shri Ashok Kumar Dev ... अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Delhi Police, Rohini Distt. ...प्रतिवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.12.2023
Date of Decision : 06.12.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri HeeralalSamariya
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 appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
625830 14.01.2022 09.02.2022 19.02.2022 21.03.202 07.05.2022
2
633556 14.01.2022 17.02.2022 24.02.2022 24.03.202 20.06.2022
2
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2022/625830 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.01.2022 seeking information w.r.t. a complaint no. 801012159022 dated 16.08.2021 on the following points:-
"...1. Actions taken by police since 16.08.2021 to till date on the complaint.
2. Details of investigation conducted by police on the evidences furnished by the complainant in his complaint may please be provided.
3. Does any verification from neighbors and office of Mr. Manohar Lal Mehra & Ms. Bhavna Mehra and their other family members conducted? Details inthis regard may please be provided."
Page 1 of 4The CPIO, Rohini District, Delhi vide letter dated 09.02.2022 replied to the Appellant as under:-
"1 to 3. As per reply of Complaint Branch, Complaint No. 801012159022 dated 16.08.2021 has not been received to this office, Hence, the information does not relate to Rohini District, Delhi."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.02.2022. The FAA/DCP, Rohini District, Delhi vide order dated 21.03.2022 held as under:-
"....PIO/RD has provided relevant information to the appellant vide this office letter dated 9.2.2022. However, on appeal of the appellant, a fresh report has been obtained from concerned and copy of the reply received from SHO/K.N.K. Marg/RD is being provided to the appellant with this order [1 PP]..."
The reply dated 10.03.2022 from the SI, PS-KNK Marg attached with the FAA's order reads as under:
"..1. To 3. In this regard, it is submitted that complaint of Ashok Kumar Dev R/O-FD-9, Residential Apartment, NITC Campaus, NIT, Calicut, Kojhikode, Keral, has been received at PS KNK Marg Delhi vide complaint No. 801012159022 & C-445/SHO/KNK Marg/Dated-24/2/23. The same is under enquiry. The other required information can not be provided U/S-8 (1) (h) Of RTI Act..."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2022/633556 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.01.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"Ref:1. FIR No. 316 dated 31.07.2021, 2 letter sent by Mr. Ashok Kr. Dev to to ACP CAW Cell Rohini Sector-3, DCP Rohini containing para-wise reply(s) (along with facts, evidences and proofs including call recordings in the form of CD).
1. A letter dated 03.03.2021 was sent by Mr. Ashok Kr. Dev to ACP CAW Cell Rohini Sector-3, DCP Rohini containing para-wise reply(s)(along with facts, evidences and proofs including call recordings in the form of CD) against the complaint No. B-01 dated 04.01.2021 filed by Ms. BhavnaMehra (w/o Mr. Ashok Kr. Dev) in CAW cell, Rohini, Sector-3 after that it was converted to FIR No. 316 dated 31.07.2021. Have the facts, evidences and para wise reply containing in the letter sent by Mr. Ashok Page 2 of 4 Kr. Dev been seen and considered by Delhi Police before converting the complaint No. B-01 dated 04.01.2021 into FIR No. 316 dated 31.07.2021.
2. Have the same letter dated 03.03.2021 along with facts, evidences and reply been seen & considered in the course of investigation done by the Investigation Officer Mr. Sandeep Kumar after registration of FIR (i.e. 31.07.2021 to till date).
3. Action taken by the police on Complaint No. 8959011072000033 dated 24.09.2020 & No. 8959011072100003 dated 10.01.2020 filed by the applicant Mr. Ashok Kr. Dev may please be provided."
The CPIO, Rohini District, Delhivide letter dated 17.02.2022 replied to the Appellant as under:-
"1 to 3. In this regard, reply received from SHO/KNK Marg, Rohini District is enclosed which is self explanatory (1 PP). Hence, the information can not be provided under section 8.1 (h) of RTI Act-2005 as it may impact the process of enquiry."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.02.2022. The FAA/DCP, Rohini District, Delhivide order dated 24.03.2022upheld the CPIO's reply.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar Dev, brother and authorised representative of the Appellant was present.
Respondent: ACP Arti Sharma-SDPO, Prashant Vihar, Inspector Dinesh Kumar- PS KNK Marg and HC Sandeep Rana- Rohini District are present for hearing.
Considering the similarity in nature of information sought by the Appellant through both the appeals and the responses sent by the Respondent, the appeals are being decided by a common order.
The Appellant's representative stated that information sought through the RTI application has not yet been furnished by the Respondent on the ground of pendency of the enquiry. Respondent explained that Appellant has sought information with respect to a complaint which is pending enquiry. The complaint relates to the matrimonial dispute between the Appellant and his wife and because of the allegations and counter allegations between the parties in the case, the enquiry is taking time. However, the Respondent assured that as soon as the Page 3 of 4 enquiry is concluded, copy of the report alongwith response to the RTI queries raised by the Appellant shall be provided to him.
Decision:
In the light of the aforementioned discussion and the fact that the Respondent has voluntarily undertaken to provide the information to the Appellant, subject to completion of the enquiry, no further intervention is warranted in these two appeals.
The appeals are decided accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालालसामरिया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रति) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4