Central Information Commission
Ankit Jain vs Delhi Police on 25 November, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/657953 +
िशकायत सं ा / Complaint No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2024/657949
Ankit Jain ... अपीलकता/Appellant
...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Delhi Police,
Pushpanjali, Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal/Complaint:
RTI : 01.11.2024 FA : 07.12.2024 SA/Complaint : Nil.
CPIO : 27.11.2024 FAO : 27.12.2024 Hearing : 12.11.2025
Note - The above-mentioned Appeal/complaint have been clubbed together for
decision as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Date of Decision:25.11.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
1. Was any written permission obtained from the DCP, Outer District, by IO WSI Suman Bajaj for issuing a notice under Section 41A of the CrPC after 14 days from the registration of FIR 473/2023?Page 1 of 6
2. If the answer to question 1 is "yes," please provide a certified copy of the permission granted by the DCP, Outer District.
3. If the answer to question 1 is "yes," please supply a certified copy of the reasons recorded in writing by the DCP, Outer District, for granting permission to IO WSI Suman Bajaj to issue the notice under Section 41A of the CrPC after 14 days, in compliance with the Supreme Court judgment in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014).
4. Please provide the serial number and diary number of ail notices issued so far in FIR no. 0473/2023.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 27.11.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"As per the report of SHO/Mangolpuri/OD, the information can not be provided to you u/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act-2005 as the case is pending investigation. Moreover, the said information would be provided to you by the Court, after the charge sheet is filed in the Court."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 07.12.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 27.12.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/Complaint dated Nil.
5. The appellant/complainant attended the hearing in person and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Bhanu Pratap, ASI, attended the hearing in person.
6. The appellant/complainant inter alia submitted that an FIR U/s 498A was filed against him and his family members by his wife. That as per the judicial precedent of Arnesh Kumar vs state of Bihar, the IO should have issued him notice U/s 41A Cr.P.C but has not served any such notice to him and hence he filed the instant RTI application seeking serial number, diary number of all the notices issued to him in FIR No. 0473/2023, certified Page 2 of 6 copy of the reasons recorded in writing by the DCP for granting permission to IO to issue notice U/s 41A Cr.P.C etc. and the same were not provided by the respondent. The appellant further submitted that the respondent alleged in the charge sheet that they have served the aforesaid notice to him but no such notice U/s 41A Cr.P.C was served upon him. The appellant further pressed on point no.4 and submitted that the respondent had not given any reply to point no.4 till date.
At the end of the hearing, when the Commission proposed for inspection of the photocopy available with the IO, the appellant accepted and requested to allow for the same on 19.11.2025.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the sought information is exempted U/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as the case is pending investigation and hence denied to the appellant vide reply dated 27.11.2024 for point no.1-3. Further vide written submission dated 06.11.2025, the respondent submitted for all the 04 points that now the case has been charge sheeted before the Hon'ble trial court and presently no such information/record is available at PS Mangolpuri. Written submission dated 06.11.2025 filed by the respondent is taken on record.
Upon the Commission's query on whether they have the copy of the file, the respondent submitted that the IO has a photocopy of the file. At this stage, the appellant requested to provide at least the photocopies, but the Commission could not accede to it on account of the reason that photocopy cannot be certified as replica copy of the original copy of the file.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has failed to give any cogent reason to deny the information U/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as to how and why the investigation will get impaired or impeded by giving the information in question. The appellant sought copy of the reasons recorded in writing by the DCP for granting permission to IO to issue notice U/s 41A Cr.P.C etc. in point no.1-3 and the respondent has failed to give any cogent reason as to how and why disclosure of the same would Page 3 of 6 impede the investigation. The words of the respondent "the information cannot be provided to you U/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act-2005 as the case is pending investigation" without any explanation thereof cannot be construed as a cogent reason. Further, the appellant alleged that the respondent has not issued any notice U/s 41A Cr.P.C to him. Also, the Commission finds that point no.4 seeking serial number, diary number of the notices issued to the appellant, which is very general in nature which will not impede the investigation was unanswered when the original copy of the file was with the respondent and now vide WS dated 06.11.2025, the respondent submits for point no.4 that the case has been charge sheeted before the Hon'ble trial court and presently no such information/record is available at PS Mangolpuri. Hence, the Commission finds substance in the argument put forth by the appellant and the respondent cannot be allowed to take exemption U/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act mechanically and allowing such an unsupported exemption would defeat the purpose of RTI Act. It is relevant to quote the opinion of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 3114 of 2007 vide judgment dated 03.12.2007 regarding exemption U/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act:
"13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information."
Also, the Commission relies on the judgment dated 05.02.2021 on the case of WP (C) No. 3701/2018 titled Amit Kumar Srivastava V. Central Information Commission Page 4 of 6 in the Hon'ble Delhi Court wherein it was held that cogent reasons have to be given by the public authority as to how and why the investigation or prosecution will get impaired or hampered by giving the information in question.
In view of the above, the Commission finds that the respondent did not give an appropriate reply to the appellant vide reply dated 27.11.2024.
Further, the respondent submitted that now the case has been charge sheeted before the Hon'ble trial court and presently no such information/record is available at PS Mangolpuri. At this factual circumstance, the Commission cannot direct the respondent to provide the sought information to the appellant. Upon verification, the respondent informed that the appellant had not come for inspection on 19.11.2025 as decided during the hearing. In view of the above, the appellant is granted one last opportunity for inspection on 03.12.2025 and thereafter a compliance report shall be submitted by the respondent to the Commission before 15.12.2025. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. CIC/DEPOL/C/2024/657949:
The Commission finds that the main contention of the complainant is w.r.t the CPIO & FAA being the same authority and the respondent submitted in response that the FAA was on leave and hence the CPIO being officiating authority, signed the FAA order. The Commission is satisfied with the reply of the respondent and hence the complaint is closed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 25.11.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Page 5 of 6 Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, O/o. The Additional Deputy Commissioner Of Police-1, CPIO, Delhi Police, Outer District, Pushpanjali, Delhi-110034 2 Ankit Jain Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)