Central Information Commission
Neena Harnal vs Delhi Police on 21 October, 2024
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/2023/139100
Ms. Neena Harnal ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 17.10.2024
Date of Decision : 17.10.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.04.2023
PIO replied on : 27.04.2023
First Appeal filed on : 27.05.2023
First Appellate Order on : 27.06.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 19.09.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.04.2023 seeking information on following points:-
1. "Please provide me the details of Crpc 41a summons issued to all the accused.
2. Please provide me the date and time along with acknowledge copy received by all the accused from your side.
3. Please provide me any reply that has been provided by accused to you via email or via Whatsapp.
4. Please provide me attested copy of the FIR #0044 registered at Special Police Unit for women and children, Crime(women) cell Nanak pura lodged by my daughter in law Kanika Gupte D/O Udey Gupte."
The Asstt. Commissioner of Police, SPUWAC, NANAKPURA, New Delhi vide letter dated 27.04.2023 replied as under:-
1. "The requisite information can't be provided in view of section 8[1](h) of RTI Act-2005. Case FIR No. 44/2022 U/S 498A/406/34 IPC PS/CWC is pending on initial stage of investigation.
2. In view of paint no. 1
3. In view of point no.1 Page 1
4. The copy of FIR can not be provided through RTI as per RTI Act 2005. As per procedure the copy of FIR can be received directly on filing an application at Police Station CWC Nanakpura New Delhi."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.05.2023. The FAA vide order dated 27.06.2023 stated as under:-
"Keeping in view of the above facts and after going through the RTI application and reply of the PIO/SPUWAC, it has been observed that there is scope to improve the reply of the RTI application of the applicant dated 11.04.2023. Therefore, the PIO/SPUWAC is hereby directed to do the needful and supply the revised reply to the appellant concerned with point no. 04 of his RTI application free of cost within stipulated period as per RTI Act-2005."
In compliance of order of FAA, the PIO has furnished reply dated 27.06.2023 as under :
The Copy of FIR No. 44I 2022 enclosed herewith.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 08.10.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under ;
The appellant preferred to file first appeal dt 27.05-2023 which was received in the office of F.A.A. on 29.05.2023(copy enclosed as Annexure C. The First Appellate Authority/SPLJWAC disposed off the same vide its order No. 11/2O23/334/RTI CeII/SPUWAC dated
27.O6.2023 copy enclosed as Annexure DJ. and directed to the PIO/SPUWAC to provide the attested copy of the FIR No. 44 12022 registered at SPTIWAC Nanakpura concerned with point No. 4 of his RTI application free of cost and same has been sent to the Appellant vide dispatch no.l24/2O23/339 Dt.27.06.2023 through speed post Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present along with Tanya Singh- participated in the hearing.
Respondent: Ms. Indubala, ACP and Ms. Reeshu SI - participated in the hearing.
The Appellant has placed on record their written submission dated 17.10.2024 during hearing.
Page 2 The Appellant stated that the summon/notice issued under Section 41-a, CRPC was not served upon her. She stated that the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application has been wrongly denied by the PIO under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. She stated that discloure of information related to copy of notice issued under Section 41-A CRPC could not have impeded any police investigation, and the PIO has denied all the documents under Section 8(1)(h) without justification. She requested to direct the PIO to furnish information as sought.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been furnished to the Appellant. They stated that the copy of FIR has been duly provided to the Appellant. Furthermore, the chargesheet has been filed in the case and entire case records has been submitted before the court and same can be obtained as per court rules.
Decision:
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 under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
Appeal is disposed of 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)