Central Information Commission
Prerna Kalia vs Delhi Police on 8 May, 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/2024/632553
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/124936
Ms. Prerna Kalia ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police.
Date of Hearing : 06.05.2025
Date of Decision : 06.05.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.01.2024
PIO replied on : 21.02.2024
First Appeal filed on : 20.03.2024
First Appellate Order on : 16.04.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 30.07.2024, 04.09.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.01.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"Copy of E-mail sent by the accused namely Siddharth in the FIR NO. 735/2021, PS Hari Nagar to the IO Kunal Sandhu Regarding his Medical Reports Copy of all the Medical documents, Report, Medication etc. submitted by accused Siddharth documents and report related in the Cs Radiculopathy, Claustrophobia, Myofascial Pain, Insomnia, Depression, and medication issued by Bundura family clinic. Dr. Chaudhary Pawar as stated by IO to the Complainant."
The CPIO vide letter dated 21.02.2024 replied as under:-
"Reply/information.
In this regard, chargesheet of case FIR No. 735/2021 u/s 498A/406/34 IPC dated 30.12.2021 has been submitted in Hon'ble Court On 02.02.2023. As per the report of SHO/Hari Nagar, the documents sought by you are not part of the chargesheet."
Page 1 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.03.2024. The FAA, Dy Commissioner of Police vide order dated 16.04.2024 stated as under :-
"Keeping in view of present appeal, the undersigned carefully gone through the information sought by the appellant, information provided thereon, point raised in 1st Appeal as well as concerned RTI file and reached on the decision that the CPIO/West District has provided appropriate reply to the appellant within the stipulated period under RTI Act-2005 on her initial RTI request. However, on receipt of present appeal, fresh comments from the CPIO/West District have again been obtained who mentioned that the sought documents are not part of the chargesheet of the said case FIR which was filed before the Hon'ble Court. Since, the case FIR No. 735/2021 u/s 498A/406/34 IPC PS Hari Nagar is pending trail in the Hon'ble Court and the appellant can get the required information/documents from the concerned court. Thus, the information so provided by CPIO/West is found to be correct and no more information in the matter is required to be provided by the undersigned, under provision of RTI Act, 2005."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 26.04.2025 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Mr. Mukesh Inspector, PS Hari Nagar, Mr. Yogesh, RTI Cell west- participated in the hearing.
The Appellant stated that the in the instant RTI Application she had sought copy of email sent by Mr. Sidharth and copy of all the medical documents, report, medication etc. submitted by accused Siddharth but same has not been furnished to her till date.
The Respondent stated that the chargesheet of case FIR No. 735/2021 u/s 498A/406/34 IPC dated 30.12.2021 has been submitted in Court on
02.02.2023. Furthermore, as per the report of SHO/Hari Nagar, the documents sought by you are not part of the chargesheet. They further stated that the case is pending trail in the court and the Appellant can get the required information/documents from the concerned court.
Decision:
Since both the aforementioned second appeals arise out of same RTI Application, they are clubbed together for final hearing and disposal.
Upon perusal of records and examining the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the concerned PIO. The reply is self- explanatory and information as permissible Page 2 under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. Commission further notes that the Appellant has sought medical records and related documents of third party which is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and disclosure of the same would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of an individual. Furthermore, no larger public interest has been established by the Appellant for disclosure of information sought.
In the light of the foregoing facts, it is evident that an appropriate reply, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, has been duly provided to the Appellant. Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
Matters are 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 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)