Central Information Commission
Mrkishan Lal vs Delhi Police on 24 February, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi110067
Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2014/001225/SB
Dated 24.02.2016
Appellant : Shri Kishan Lal,
D2/289, Sultan Puri,
Delhi110 086.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Delhi Police, O/o the PIO,
Outer District, Pushpanjali,
Delhi110 034.
Date of Hearing : 24.02.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.09.2013
CPIO's reply : 24.10.2013
First appeal : 23.11.2013
Second Appeal dated : 25.01.2014
ORDER
1. Shri Kishan Lal Rao filed an application dated 25.09.2013 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Outer District, Delhi Police seeking information on five points relating to a complaint filed by him on 23.07.2013 in PS Sultanpuri, Delhi against SI Parveen Kumar for preparing and filing false 1 report in a judicial proceeding, including (i) whether any action has been taken on his complaint and (ii) whether any investigation has been made in this regard.
2. The appellant filed the second appeal dated 25.01.2014 before the Commission on the ground that the CPIO has not provided complete information and made a request that the Appellate Authority must take strict action and impose penalty of Rs.250/ per day on the CPIO.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Kishan Lal Rao participated in the hearing personally. The respondent Shri Dharam Pal Singh, ACP, Delhi was present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that he has sought information regarding the action taken on his complaint dated 23.07.2013 against SI Praveen Kumar. However, the respondent informed him that a complaint made by Ms Sangeeta has been filed under Section 156(3) Cr.PC and the matter is subjudice. Hence, no action has been taken in this regard. The appellant further submitted that his complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.PC was against Shri Prabhu Dayal and others and not against SI Praveen Kumar.
5. The respondent submitted that pointwise information has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 24.10.2013.
Decision:
6. The Commission on perusal of the records observes that correct information has not been provided by the respondent. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to provide 2 complete and correct information on point no.(a) of the RTI application within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer 3