Central Information Commission
Rakesh Kumar vs Delhi Police on 13 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/2024/640363
Shri Rakesh Kumar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Delhi Police, Dwarka District ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.08.2025
Date of Decision : 11.08.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.06.2024
PIO replied on : 25.07.2024
First Appeal filed on : 04.08.2024
First Appellate Order on : 02.08.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 12.09.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"Please provide the below information in respect of case FIR No 477/21 dated 02/09/2021 u/s 308/34 IPC P.S. NajafGarh (1) Has the chargesheet has been filed in the above said case. (2) if the chargesheet has been filed then provide the copy of the chargesheet. Also provide the date on which the chargesheet has been filed. (3) if the chargesheet is not filed the reason for not filing the chargesheet. (4) what is the time period under which the chargesheet should be filed in this case.
(5) The details of the incharge officers who is handing this case. (6) is any officer responsible under law for delay in the filing of chargesheet (7) details of the officer/officers who is/are responsible for delay in the filing of chargesheet"
The CPIO, Addl. DCP, Dwarka vide letter dated 25.07.2024 replied as under:-
"1&2. No
3. The case is pending investigation.
4,6 & 7. The requisite information is in fact a query in nature and does not fall under the category of information as per section 2(f) of RTI Act-2005
5. ASI Satyawan, PS/Najafgarh is 10 of the case."Page 1 of 3
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO on points 4, 6 and 7, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.08.2024. The FAA, DCP, Dwarka Dist. vide order dated 02.09.2024 replied as under:-
"The undersigned has carefully considered the application filed by the appellant under RTI Act-2005, information sought by his as well as information provided by the CPIO/Dwarka District and fresh report/comment of the CPIO/DWD on the instant appeal. It has been observed that the requisite information as asked by the appellant under RTI Act-2005 was provided by the CPIO/Dwarka District, New Delhi within stipulated period. Notwithstanding, in view of the instant appeal filed by the appellant and fresh report/comments received from CPIO/DWD, the undersigned finds that the above said case FIR No. 477/21 dated 02.09.2021 u/s 308/34 IPC, PS Najafgarh is still pending investigation with EO/ASI Satyawan & the same requisite information has already been furnished to the appellant vide this office letter No. 2470 (ID-1508/24)(D-III)/RTI Cell/DWD dt. 25.07.2024, which is self-explanatory. Apart from this, keeping in view of specification of instant appeal & after giving the relief, ACP/Najafgarh is being directed to look into the investigation in the above said case and to furnish detailed compliance report to this office accordingly. Hence, the application of the appellant has rightly been disposed off by the CPIO/Dwarka District. However, the appellant is further advised that he may file a separate detailed request/application for the redressal of his rest grievances in instant appeal, if desire so. In view of the above, instant appeal stands disposed off accordingly."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 05.08.2025 has been received from the CPIO, Dwarka District reiterating the aforementioned facts.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present Respondent: Inspector Rajender Prasad - RTI Cell, Dwarka and SI Satbir Singh - PS Najafgarh were present during hearing.
Both parties reiterated their respective contentions stating the facts as already noted above. The Appellant expressed dissatisfaction at denial of information against queries number 4, 6 and 7 claiming that he had sought information vide these points which had been denied to him. The Respondent on the other hand, being probed by the Commission stated that investigation in the case was still under process and some arrests have also been made during the course of investigation.
Decision Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing averments of the parties, it is noted that information available on record with the public authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act had been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellant vide queries number 4,6 and 7 had sought hypothetical queries which can be answered only with some inference, opinion or guesswork by the PIO. The PIO under the ambit of the RTI Act is not mandated to Page 2 of 3 draw either inference nor respond the information seeker with his/her personal opinion. Accordingly, the Commission is of the opinion that the PIO's reply is legally appropriate. Hence, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off 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)