Central Information Commission
Sushma vs Delhi Police on 19 May, 2021
Central Information Commission
,
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
, New Delhi-110067
/ Second Appeal Nos. CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/122902
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/122903
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/122904
Ms. Sushma ... /Appellant
VERSUS/
PIO ... /Respondent
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 18.05.2021
Date of Decision : 19.05.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Note: The present batch of Appeals as listed above has been preferred by the
same Appellant. The Commission proposes to club these matters and
adjudicate upon them all together through the present order for the sake of
brevity and avoidance of multiple proceedings.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
122902 ---- 24.12.2019 06.01.2020 16.01.2020 14.08.2020
122903 ---- 24.12.2019 06.01.2020 16.01.2020 14.08.2020
122904 ----- 24.12.2019 06.01.2020 16.01.2020 14.08.2020
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/122902 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated nil seeking information in the form of queries regarding enquiry report No. 2640/ACP-KB/C dated 31.07.2019 and 11917/HAC/C dated 29.05.2019; whether any statement from SI Bajrang, PS Karol Bagh after preparation of the enquiry reports; whether enquiry report was prepared only on the basis of the inputs provided by SI Brahm Singh, etc. Page 1 of 4 The CPIO vide letter dated 24.12.2019 furnished a reply to the Appellant informing her that similar information was already provided to her in other RTI applications.
Furthermore, the information was sought for redressal of her personal grievance and no larger public interest warranting disclosure was justified by the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.01.2020. The FAA vide order dated 16.01.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the reply, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/122903 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated nil seeking information in the form of queries regarding enquiry report No. 2640/ACP-KB/C dated 31.07.2019 and 11917/HAC/C dated 29.05.2019; number of pages received by ACP, Karol Bagh from CAW Cell in report No. 2640 dated 31.07.2019, copy of the pages received, etc. The CPIO vide letter dated 24.12.2019 furnished a reply to the Appellant informing her that similar information was already provided to her in other RTI applications. Furthermore, the information was sought for redressal of her personal grievance and no larger public interest warranting disclosure was justified by the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.01.2020. The FAA vide order dated 16.01.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the reply, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(3) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/122904 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated nil seeking information in the form of queries regarding enquiry report No. 2640/ACP-KB/C dated 31.07.2019 and 11917/HAC/C dated 29.05.2019; whether the said enquiry reports were complete in all respect; basis of findings in the enquiry report, etc. The CPIO vide letter dated 24.12.2019 furnished a reply to the Appellant informing her that similar information was already provided to her in other RTI applications. Furthermore, the information was sought for redressal of her personal grievance and no larger public interest warranting disclosure was justified by the Appellant.
Page 2 of 4Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.01.2020. The FAA vide order dated 16.01.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the reply, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from PIO, Central District, Delhi Police, vide letter dated 13.05.2021 with respect to all the matters wherein the action taken was reiterated.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID- 19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. Explaining the background of the matter, she stated that she had filed a complaint against her brother in law, Shri Hemant which was incorrectly closed by the police. Dissatisfied she had approached the Crimes Against Women (CAW) Cell, which had directed that her statements be recorded an an inquiry conducted in the matter. The Appellant however alleged that a copy of the complete inquiry report with her statement was not provided to her initially. Subsequently, she filed an RTI application dated 02.11.2019 in reply to which a complete inquiry report of 64 pages was provided. Thus, it was her grievance that there were irregularities in the manner in which the matter was dealt with and questioned the reason for not providing her the complete inquiry report initially.
The Respondent represented by Ms. Vidushi Kaushik, ACP, Karol Bagh participated in the hearing through audio conference. She stated that essentially the Appellant has a matrimonial dispute with her husband Shri Brij Mohan and was filing multiple RTI applications with regard to the same. Claiming that the Appellant has filed multiple complaints, Ms. Kaushik stated that the Appellant first filed a complaint with the CAW Cell in 2015 which was later withdrawn as the matter was mutually settled between the parties. However, subsequently the Appellant had filed many complaints against her husband and brother in law for offences such as minor hurt, criminal intimidation and attempt to rape, which were not substantiated. She also made reference to a complaint of Appellant dated 28.12.2019 pertaining to mistreatment by her husband for which MLC was conducted on the same date. However, after examination of the matter, a non cognisable report was prepared on 27.08.2020.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission takes note of the background of the matter illustrated by both th e Appellant and the Respondent. Based on the explanation, the Commission is of the Page 3 of 4 view that redressal of Appellant's grievances regarding correctness of the investigation/inquiry in her matter is outside the scope of the jurisdiction of the Commission for which she should approach an appropriate forum. However, the replies provided in all the 3 matters reveal that no information/ point wise reply was provided by the PIO vide letter dated 24.12.2019 and only a plea regarding filing of multiple RTI applications is taken for denying providing information. Moreover, the Respondent has not furnished a copy of any earlier reply provided against similar RTI applications filed by the Appellant. Thus, in the light of the above observations, the Commission directs the PIO, Central District, Delhi Police to reexamine the RTI applications and provide a proper response to the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 15.07.2021 under intimation to the Commission.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha( )
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
S. K. Chitkara ( )
Dy. Registrar ( - )
011-26180514
Page 4 of 4