Tarun Gupta vs Delhi Police on 13 December, 2023

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Tarun Gupta vs Delhi Police on 13 December, 2023

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/2022/119348

Shri Tarun Gupta                                              ... अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
                                    VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, North District, Delhi Police                         ...प्रतिवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                        :   13.12.2023
Date of Decision                       :   13.12.2023
Chief Information Commissioner         :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :         27.12.2021
PIO replied on                    :         03.01.2022
First Appeal filed on             :         04.02.2022
First Appellate Order on          :         25.02.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :         22.04.2022

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.12.2021 seeking information on 11 points related to FIR No. 0128 dated 16.03.2021 as under:

"1. Whether the procedure, mandated in S.O. No.444/2016 dated 21.06.2016, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi is being followed in case FIR No 0128 dated 16.03.2021 u/s 380/ 448/ 34 IPC PS Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.

2. The copies of the sanctions/extension obtained from the Sr. Officers for extension in the time of investigation as per S.O. No.444/2016.

3. Whether the I.O. has prepared site plan in the above case? If so on whose instance?

4. Whether the accused persons have been arrested in this case? If not reasons thereof. Etc"

The PIO and ACP, North District vide letter dated 03.01.2022 replied as under:-

"1 to 11. As per report of SHO Sarai Rohilla case FIR No.128/2021, dated 16.03.2021, u/s. 380/448/34 IPC has been registered and the same is pending investigation. Hence, more information cannot be provided due to exemption under Page 1 of 3 section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005 which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.02.2022. The FAA vide order dated 25.02.2022 directed CPIO to provide fresh status of the investigation.

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

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present Respondent: 1. Shri Anil Kumar, ACP, North District;

2. Shri Ravi Dutt, SI, RTI Cell, North District The Appellant stated that more than 2 years have lapsed since the registration of FIR. However the matter is still under investigation. Hence he prayed for disclosure of complete information.

Shri Anil Kumar handed over a copy of a fresh status report as on the date of instant hearing to the Appellant and the Commission and stated that the matter is still pending investigation. However, efforts were made to expeditiously complete the investigation.

Decision:

In the light of the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. As per the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:

"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."

Page 2 of 3

Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in this matter. For redressal of his grievance regarding timely completion of investigation, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.

The instant Second Appeal stands disposed off as such.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामरिया) 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 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission