Central Information Commission
Akshay Kumar Malhotra vs Delhi Police on 30 March, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2025/621749
Akshay Kumar Malhotra ...शिकायतकर्ाा /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
Delhi Police, Cyber Police,
North West District ... प्रतर्वादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.01.2026, 24.03.2026
Date of Decision- Interim : 19.01.2026
Date of Final Decision : 30.03.2026
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 14.10.2024 FA : 27.11.2024 SA : 15.05.2025
Hearing : 15.01.2026
CPIO : 12.11.2024 FAO : 17.12.2024
24.03.2026
Date of Decision: 30.03.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 14.10.2024 before the DCP(IFSO)/CPIO, Cyber Police Station North West District, seeking the information about action taken and status report on his Online Complaint No. 20806240045822 dated 13.06.2024, lodged Online on the website of Cyber Crime web portal i.e. https://cybercrime.gov.in/ related to a fraud call received by him. His list of queries are as under:
CIC/DEPOL/C/2025/621749 Page 1 of 10"1. Please give me the complete address of this Cyber Police Station, North West Delhi.
2. Please inform me the names of the persons at helm and persons in charge for handling cyber complaints, along with their designations and contact details viz official Phone numbers/Mobile Numbers in this Cyber Police Station, North West Delhi.
3. Please inform me the action taken on mobile number 9xxxx1579, from which the call came on my mobile number 9******17 on 13.06.2024 at around 0840 am.
4. Please inform me the action taken on skype details (which are available with you as I shared the screenshot of the skype video call details) from where I received the skype video call at around 09.35 am on 13.06.2024 at around 09.35 am
5. Please inform me the action taken on the said Complaint.
6. Please inform me the FIR, if any, lodged on basis of my complaint.
7. Please inform me the reasons for not lodging FIR in my above mentioned complaint, if the FIR is not registered.
8. Please inform me the status of my said Complaint/FIR.
9. Please inform me various Sections and name of the Act/Law (Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) etc etc) under which my Complaint/FIR is booked.
10. Please inform me the name(s) of all those Investigating officer(s) who investigated/investigating my above mentioned FIR. Please inform me the PIS Numbers as well as Ranks of all such I/o and the period (from date: To Date:) during which the said investigation was under their control.
11. Please inform me the name(s) of the people who are been questioned during investigation and the date(s) on which each of such person was investigated.
12. Please inform me the observations/findings of the I/o while investigating the said Complaint/FIR, and also provide me with the certified copies of all such observations/findings of the I/o during investigation. I am to be provided with the certified copies of all such people were investigated and the observations/findings of the I/o for each of all such people.
13. Please inform me and provide me with the certified copies of all such statements which are submitted by those people who were investigated by I/o during the course of investigation for the said Complaint/FIR.
14. Please inform me the reason(s) in records, in case, the people which are been named and identified by I/o related to said Complaint/FIR but are not been investigated, and also inform me the reasons for which such people are not investigated.CIC/DEPOL/C/2025/621749 Page 2 of 10
15. Please inform me the reason for change of I/o's, if there are more than 1 I/o in the present FIR.
16. Please inform me the reasons in records for I/o not even updating me about the status of my Complaint/FIR, even though I/o is under obligation under BNS to provide me with the status of my Complaint/FIR.
17. Please inform me names of the concerned public servants i.e. HC/ASI/SI from Cyber Crime Police, NWD, Delhi and the action taken against him/her, who has miserably failed for total absence of services as s/he not informed me about the action taken on my Complaint/FIR.
18. Please give me the entire sequence of flow of my Complaint/FIR along with respective dates of such forwarding / flow of my FIR with different public servants within Public Authority, along with the names and designation of all such public servants to whom my FIR is forwarded.
19. Please inform me the action taken by each of the public servant, along with dates of such action, to whom my Complaint/FIR is forwarded.
20. Please inform me the names of those public servants along with their designations, who are responsible for resolving/investigating this Complaint/FIR.
21. Please inform me the procedures and responsibilities of Public Authority, to act upon such FIR's and the time frame within which Complaint/FIR of this type is to be attended into and action to be taken.
22. I am to be provided with copies of the entire set of documents related to (i) statements taken by Delhi Police from all the people and or any other person(s) and (ii) the action taken on my Complaint/FIR by the various public servants of the Public Authority.
23. Please inform me with the details (Court Name ( Rohini Court/ Tis Hazari Court etc ), Court of Sh....., Court Number- , Case Number, CNR Number, Date of Hearing etc etc ) of the Judicial Court where the case proceedings are been carried out as on date.
24. What is the status of the case in the Judicial Court along with business conducted on each hearing and directions issued / Orders of H'ble Court.
25. Please inform me the details of the Counsel, who is representing State (Delhi Police) in the case before H'ble Court, along with the Mobile Number and address of the said Counsel.
26. Please inform me and provide me with the certified copies of the entire set of documents which are filed in Judicial Court for the said Complaint/FIR by the Public Authority as well as responses received / statements made, from/by anybody including any other Govt Agency and/or any other private person(s).
27. Please inform me and provide me with the certified copies of the entire set of documents of charge sheet filed by I/o in this Complaint/FIR.CIC/DEPOL/C/2025/621749 Page 3 of 10
28. Please inform that what are the other documents which I/o must provide to me as I lodged Online Complaint/FIR, before and after the charge sheet is filed with the H'ble Judicial Court."
[reproduced verbatim]
2. The PIO/Addl. DCP, NW District responded vide letter dated 12.11.2024 replied as under:
"A copy of the report procured from SHO/Cyber/NWD through ACP/Ops./NWD (The principal supplier of the information) is enclosed herewith which is self explanatory(Total - 01 page)"
[Reproduced verbatim]
3. The report of the SHO/Cyber/NWD sent through ACP/Ops./NWD indicated the following information provided to the complainant:
"Point No Information/Details
1 2nd floor police station Model Town, Delhi-110009.
2 SHO/Cyber, NWD, 8750870232 & Duty officer Cyber/NWD,
6828402137 & EO/HC Babu Lal, 602/NW, 9868017272. 3 No action against the phone No. 4 to 6 Nil 7 No financial loss & no cognizable offence 8 This compliant is closed.
9 As per point No 7, No FIR Registered against the online complaint No 20806240045822.
10 to 16 As per point No 917 HC Babu lal, 602/NW 18 to 28 As per point No 9"
[Reproduced verbatim]
4. Dissatisfied with PIO's reply, the Complainant filed the First Appeal dated 27.112024, alleging inter alia violation of Section 4 of the RTI Act and that as the complainant, he is entitled to the information free of cost. Moreover he raised CIC/DEPOL/C/2025/621749 Page 4 of 10 objections with respect to response given by the PIO on points 2,4,5,8,7,9-17 and 18-
28.
5. The FAA decided the First Appeal vide order dated 17.12.2024, upholding the PIO's order.
6. Dissatisfied with the FAA's order, the Complainant filed the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in course of Hearing:
7. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Complainant: Present.
Respondent: Mr. Rajbir Singh - ACP and ASI Vijay Singh - Ashok Vihar, North West District, Delhi Police were present.
8. The Complainant reiterated his contentions from his First Appeal and this Complaint, including allegations of violation of Section 4 of the RTI Act. Expressing his dissatisfaction, he mentioned that inter alia Delhi Police didn't give him the accurate status as well as desired progress report with respect to his FIR.
9. The Respondent -PIO/Addl. DCP, NW District reiterated the PIO's reply stating that the information available had been provided to the Complainant, though it was admitted that the replies were concise.
Interim Decision: 19.01.2026
10. Upon perusal of the records of the case and after hearing the averments of both parties, it is noted that the Respondent has not filed any written submission/counter statement in this case, addressing the complainant's contentions which have been stated in the Complaint. Hence, the Commission directs the Respondent - PIO/Addl. DCP, NW District to submit their written submission/ counter statement with respect to the instant Complaint, within two weeks of receipt of this order. Registry of this Bench is directed to re-schedule this case for hearing on 24.03.2026.
CIC/DEPOL/C/2025/621749 Page 5 of 10Facts emerging in course of Hearing: 24.03.2026
11. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Complainant: Present.
Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Kumar - ACP with Insp. Dinesh Dahiya - SHO (Cyber) - and ASI Vijay Singh were present from Delhi Police, North West District.
12. The Complainant commenced his arguments pointing out that neither CPIO nor an officer of equivalent rank was representing the Respondent. He placed reliance on his written submission dated 13.03.2026 stating that the Respondent has not provided any fresh or different reply than provided earlier on 12.11.2024. The Complainant has mentioned in his written submission the cause of his dissatisfaction with the PIO's response in the following words:
"This complaint was lodged by me with Delhi Police as I was arrested digitally, which is illegal in India and thus an offence under BNS/BNSS. Moreover, the condition of Cognizable and non-cognizable offence arises ONLY AND ONLY when the Police themselves suo-motu registers a complaint/looks into an act which might/might not be an offence. So, only when Delhi Police suo-motu takes cognizance of an act then Police may say that no action is to be taken as offence is not cognizable in nature as Police has to suo-motu take action on only cognizable offences. But in my present case of digital arrest, it was not that Police themselves and suo-motu registered a complaint or started looking into the issue, as after which they would have said that it is not Cognizable offence and hence no action is to be taken, even though that also would have been wrong because as per the law of land in India, arresting any citizen of India illegally is an offence. But in case the citizen him/her self registered a complaint with Police (as was done by me), then police just cant deny taking any action by saying that its not a cognizable offence but without any basic enquiry into complaint, as the question of Cognizable or Non-Cognizable doesn't even arise in a complaint made by any citizen of India.
As action of Police which are dependent of Cognizable or Non-Cognizable offence arises only and only when Police themselves and suo-motu have taken cognizance of an act and without any initial complaint of any citizen."
13. The Respondent - PIO/Addl. DCP, North West District, Delhi Police, has also submitted the written submission dated 30.01.2026, reiterating the above facts and adding that a fresh report has been obtained from SHO/Cyber Police through CIC/DEPOL/C/2025/621749 Page 6 of 10 ACP/Ops./NWD, in which he mentioned that: "After attending the hearing before Hon'ble CIC, appellant was again provided detailed information against each point through e-mail", a copy whereof has been enclosed with the written submission. The information so furnished is as under:
"Point No Information/Details
1 Cyber Police Station, North West, 2nd floor police station Model Town,
Delhi-110009.
2 SHO/Cyber/NWD, 8750870232 & Duty officer Cyber/NWD, 6828402137
& EO/HC Babu Lal, 602/NW, 9868017272.
3 No action against the phone No. as no financial loss and no Cognizable
offence was occurred
4 No action against the skype, as no financial loss and no Cognizable offence
was occurred
5 No action required in this complaint, as no financial loss and no
Cognizable offence was occurred.
6 No FIR is Registered.
7 Due to no financial loss & no cognizable offence.
8 This complaint has been closed.
9 No FIR is registered, hence no section of law.
10 No FIR is registered, hence no Investigation Officer marked against the
complaint however the complaint was with HC Babulal. 11 No FIR is registered, hence no person was questioned during investigation of the case.
12 After going through the contents of the complaint, it was opined that no financial loss and cognizable offence occurred, accordingly the complaint was closed.
13 No statement was recorded during investigation as No FIR is registered. 14 There is no such list of reasons, it depend upon case to case. 15 N/A, as only one IO in the present complaint.
16 No such reason.
17 HC Babu lal, was inquiry officer.
18 Only one enquiry officer i.e HC Babu Lal, remained in the complaint. 19 Action Taken- Complaint Closed.
20 HC Babu Lal PS Cyber NW.
21 No specific time frame mentioned.
22 No such statement as asked.
23 Not applicable in your complaint.
24 N/A being N/A at point No 23.
25 N/A being N/A at point No 23.
26 N/A being N/A at point No 23.
27 N/A being N/A at point No 23.
28 None CIC/DEPOL/C/2025/621749 Page 7 of 10 Final Decision: 30.03.2026
14. Upon perusal of the records of the case, it is noted that the Complainant's dissatisfaction/contentions revolve around the correctness of treating the digital arrest as a non-cognisable offence, as per law. This issue raised by the Complainant is clearly outside the purview of the RTI Act. The complainant's objection on the Respondent treating the complaint as non cognisable cannot be adjudicated under the limited scope of the RTI Act. It will be worthwhile to consider the decision dated 03.04.2018, passed by the Bombay High Court, while deciding the case of Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. The Goa State Information Commission wherein it was held that:
" ..The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot be expected to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information..."
[emphasis supplied]
15. The Respondent is under obligation under the RTI Act to only disclose information, which is available and existing on records, not clarify why a certain decision was taken or not taken, and in this case, why a certain offence was treated as a cognisable or non cognisable offence. In the given situation, the Respondent has furnished the information available on record to the Complainant in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. It is also noted that the Complainant had filed a Second Appeal bearing no. CIC/DEPOL/A/2025/608145 based on the same RTI Application, which has since been decided vide order dated 15.01.2026 passed by this Bench.
16. In so far as the Complainant's contention about no action under BNS/BNSS on his complaint is concerned, the alleged fraud call was received by the Complainant on 13.06.2024 and the online complaint was filed by him on 13.06.2024, whereas the BNS/BNSS came into effect on 01.07.2024. The Respondent argued that necessary CIC/DEPOL/C/2025/621749 Page 8 of 10 action was taken by the Respondent, in terms of the extant law, i.e. under IPC/CrPC/Evidence Act.
17. Considering the fact that the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question to be adjudicated is whether there was any willful concealment of information. Records of the case reveal that the Respondent had provided information to the Complainant on 12.11.2024 and a subsequent detailed response on 19.01.2026, indicating the absence of deliberate or wilful denial or obstruction in dissemination of information in this case. The scope and ambit of proceedings under provisions of Section 18 of the RTI Act are limited and has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...30. ...The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
18. In the facts of the case at hand it is noted that responses dated 12.11.2024 and 19.01.2026 provided by the Respondents do not suffer from any legal infirmity, neither any case of deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondents has been established by the Complainant in his submissions in this case, under the RTI Act. Hence, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is warranted in this case.
The case is disposed off as such.
Raj Kumar Goyal (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) CIC/DEPOL/C/2025/621749 Page 9 of 10 Authenticated true copy (अतिप्रमातणर् सत्यातिर् प्रतर्) Bijendra Kumar (शिजेंद्र कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक)/011-26186535 CIC/DEPOL/C/2025/621749 Page 10 of 10 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)