Central Information Commission
J C Gupta vs Delhi Police on 17 April, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
BABA GANGNTH MARG, MUNIRKA
New Delhi-110067
F. No.CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/186733
Date of Hearing : 12.04.2018
Date of Decision : 12.04.2018
Appellant/Complainant : Shri J. C. Gupta
Respondent : PIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of
Police, North-West District
Through: Sh. Ramesh Kumar-ACP,
SI-Badami Lal, SI- Sunny Kumar,
Inspector/SHO-Ranjay
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.09.2016
PIO replied on : 05.10.2016
First Appeal filed on : 10.10.2016
First Appellate Order on : 15.11.2016
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 21.11.2016
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 07.09.2016, the appellant stated that complaint against Ms. Santosh Chadha by him on 14.08.2015 and through RWA of our RP Block on 16.08.2015 to Mr. Mukesh Kumar, SHO of Maurya Enclave -Police Station and subsequent reminder dated 31.10.2015 and 18.11.2015 requesting to lodge FIR. He sought information about the RTI enquiry to know the status of FIR against Ms. Santosh Chadha.
PIO-cum-Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, North West District vide letter dated 05.10.2016 provided the information to the appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 10.10.2016. Shri Milind Mahadeo Dumbere, IPS, FAA-cum-Dy. Commissioner of Police North-West District disposed off the appeal vide order dated 15.11.2016 upholding the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission in second appeal.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Appellant narrates that a particular lady in his neighbourhood has been creating nuisance by alleging false and frivolous things against the appellant. Police had registered FIR under Section 509 of the IPC against him on the basis of the lady's false complaint but have not taken any action against the lady in question against whom the complete Residents Welfare Association has complained.
Decision:
After addressing the averments of the appellant and the police officials present during the hearing, the Commission notes that the appellant and his neighbour Ms. Santosh Chadha have filed cross complaints against each other on a range of issues bordering on the trivia. However, the appellant has been made an accused in an FIR lodged against him in the year 2015 by Ms. Chadha which is pending in Court. The appellant's grievance is that his complaint is not being addressed in an appropriate manner, while the police has been taking active measures at every beck and call of his rather abusive neighbour. As a result, the lady in question has been running a riot in the locality harassing residents of the area at her whims and fancy.
SHO, Maurya Enclave stated that the offence narrated by the appellant in his complaint is of a non cognisable nature and hence no FIR could be lodged. Further, the issue arose out of a petty damage to a flower pot of the neighbour, Ms. Chadha caused by the appellant's car which was driven by his servant to the parking lot. When queried by the Commission, the SHO stated that he has been posted in the area for over a year and has not received any complaint against the lady in question. However, he further assured that in the event, so necessary he shall make every endeavour to maintain peace and order, particularly with respect to any dispute involving this particular lady, Ms. Chadha. Considering that the alleged trouble maker in the area is a woman, the SHO further stated that he shall deploy female police staff to ensure that the lady in question does not harass her neighbours by any means.
Considering the above averments of the parties, the Commission arrives at the conclusion that this is a case of neighbourly dispute, about which the local police officials have assured appropriate action shall be taken against whoever is found guilty. The Commission finds that no direction is deemed necessary in this case.
The appeal is disposed of with no further directions.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer