Central Information Commission
Suresh vs Delhi Police on 11 June, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/800015
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/800018
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/800019
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/800020
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/800021
CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/800022
Shri Suresh ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 08.06.2021
Date of Decision : 11.06.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2 nd Appeal
No. on received on
800015 20.10.2019 20.11.2019 24.11.2019 13.12.2019 11.01.2020
800018 20.10.2019 20.11.2019 24.11.2019 11.12.2019 11.01.2020
800019 20.10.2019 20.11.2019 24.11.2019 13.12.2019 11.01.2020
800020 20.10.2019 20.11.2019 24.11.2019 13.12.2019 11.01.2020
800021 20.10.2019 20.11.2019 24.11.2019 13.12.2019 11.01.2020
800022 20.10.2019 20.11.2019 24.11.2019 13.12.2019 11.01.2020
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/800015 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.10.2019 seeking information on 09 points regarding appeal against the misuse of Dowry, 498A by Mrs. Sarita & her brother dated 04/10/2019, in the O/o Delhi Police Commissioner, (FIR No.68/2012, PS-Mangol Puri against Mrs Sarita & Sh. Rajinder S/o late Sh.
Parbhu Singh R/o N-56, Gali-2, Mangol Puri, New Delhi-83).:-
1.Please specify the duration of stay of the complainant with my family at Jwala Puri and also specify the address of stay.Page 1 of 11
2.Did any proof submit to the police that showed complainant lived with us.
Provide the certified copy.
3.Did the I.O had given the opportunity to the accused to tell the facts with him/her before submitting the charge sheet in the honorable court, Please supply me the supporting evidence.
4.Please provide me, why I.O had not interested to collect the statements from neighbours at Jwala Puri.
5.Please provide me, why IO had not collecting the statements from the neighbours at Jwala Puri.
6.Please provide me, Had IO informed the all accused persons about the allegations on them. If answer is yes, did it happened in this case.
7.Please provide me, do you admit that I.O failed to transfer the case to the respective PS, which has jurisdiction to entertain the case.
8.Please provide me certified copy of all documents of Domestic Violence Case parties names Smt.Sarita Vs Suresh & family. Mangol Puri PS. Like. Evidences, Complainant application etc.
9.Kindly provide the copy summons issued to complainant and her witnesses during investigation of the case pertaining to FIR & DV Act.
The CPIO/Outer District vide letter dated 20.11.2019 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.11.2019. The FAA/DCP, Outer District vide order dated 13.12.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO. Subsequently, the PIO and Sr AO (Judicial), North West District, Rohini Courts vide letter dated 27.11.2019 informed the Appellant that the desired information related to judicial proceedings and opinion of the CPIO is sought on such matters. Explaining that the information was exempted as per Rule 7 (iv), (vi), (viii) of the Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008, it was stated that information regarding specific judicial proceedings can be obtained by following the procedures laid down in the Delhi High Court Rules and Orders.Page 2 of 11
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/800018 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.10.2019 seeking information on 07 points regarding appeal against the misuse of Dowry, 498A by Mrs. Sarita & her brother dated 04/10/2019 in the O/o Delhi Police Commissioner, (FIR No.68/2012, PS-Mangol Puri) against Mrs Sarita & Sh. Rajinder S/o late Sh. Parbhu Singh R/o N-56, Gali-2, Mangol Puri, New Delhi-83.:-
1.Whether any action is taken on this Appeal with reference to the Appeal against the Misuse of Dowry, 498A by Mrs.Sarita & Her Brother dated 04/10/2019 in the office of Delhi Police Commissioner. a) If NO please provide me the reason for not initiating any action with certified supporting documents, b) If YES please provide me the certified copy of investigation & action taken report of above said appeal.
2.Please provide me certified copies of that guidelines issued by Delhi Police Commissioner to DCP & SHO, which described the latest rules for investigated and verified the claims, Bills, source of income & flow of money of the complainant about Streedhan & Dowry law, used in FIR No.68/2012 (u/s 498 A ,406 ,34 & DV).
3.Please provide certified copy that IO verified all accused were living in share household according to guidelines.
4.IO verified the address of all the accused, with area of the house & how many rooms ( Like Bedroom, Kitchen, Drawing room, bathroom etc.) are there, provide certified copy.
5.Please provide me certified copy of that evidence to showed that Investigator & CAW Cell had followed the all guidelines to recommend FIR No.68/2012 to be made against the persons accused u/s 498 A, 406, 34 & DV Act.
6.Had investigator been investigated the incident at the spot of action, As per Indian Evidence Act 1872, Section 9, give a certified copy.
7.Had the list of dowry material made at the time of marriage from both parties, under the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, Section 2, Give a certified copy.
The CPIO/Outer District vide letter dated 20.11.2019 replied as under:-
Page 3 of 11Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.11.2019. The FAA/DCP, Outer District vide order dated 11.12.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO. Subsequently, the PIO and Sr AO (Judicial), North West District, Rohini Courts vide letter dated 27.11.2019 informed the Appellant that the desired information related to judicial proceedings and opinion of the CPIO is sought on such matters. Explaining that the information was exempted as per Rule 7 (iv), (vi), (viii) of the Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008, it was stated that information regarding specific judicial proceedings can be obtained by following the procedures laid down in the Delhi High Court Rules and Orders.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(3) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/800019 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.10.2019 seeking information on 08 points regarding appeal against the misuse of Dowry, 498A by Mrs. Sarita & Her Brother dated 04/10/2019 in the O/o Delhi Police Commissioner, (FIR No.68/2012, PS-Mangol Puri against Mrs Sarita & Sh. Rajinder S/o late Sh. Parbhu Singh R/o N-56, Gali-2, Mangol Puri, New Delhi-83).:-
1.Had investigator collected affidavit from complainant to prove the beating, killing and indecent language,
a)-If yes, give a certified copy.
b)-If No, So why had not collected. Please provide reason with certified copy.
2.What action had taken against complainant after the investigator verified Section 3 of the Dowry prohibition Act. Give a certified copy.
a) If did not done, why not it had been done, please give reason with a certified copy.
b) If did, give a certified copy of FIR.
3.What written statements of witnesses were taken by the investigator at the scene, Give certified copy.
Page 4 of 114.What written statements of the defendants were recorded by the investigator, Give a certified copy.
5. Which substantive evidence or proof was taken by investigator from the complainant for dowry demand, Give a certified copy.
6.What confirmation was recorded by the investigator in the deliberation plan, Give a certified copy.
7.As per order of Honble Supreme Court Manju Ram Kalita vs State Of Assam on 29 May, 2009, Had investigator followed above order during the investigation & what was the examination taken to examine 498 in compliance, Give Certified copy of Report.
8.Prior to filing 498A, the order of the first inquiry by the Supreme Court adjudicators Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh was complied with.
The CPIO/Outer District vide letter dated 20.11.2019 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.11.2019. The FAA/DCP, Outer District vide order dated 11.12.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO. Subsequently, the PIO and Sr AO (Judicial), North West District, Rohini Courts vide letter dated 27.11.2019 informed the Appellant that the desired information related to judicial proceedings and opinion of the CPIO is sought on such matters. Explaining that the information was exempted as per Rule 7 (iv), (vi), (viii) of the Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008, it was stated that information regarding specific judicial proceedings can be obtained by following the procedures laid down in the Delhi High Court Rules and Orders.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(4) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/800020 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.10.2019 seeking information on 09 points regarding appeal against the misuse of Dowry, 498A by Mrs. Sarita & Page 5 of 11 Her Brother dated 04/10/2019 in the O/o Delhi Police Commissioner, (FIR No.68/2012, PS-Mangol Puri against Mrs Sarita & Sh. Rajinder S/o late Sh. Parbhu Singh R/o N-56, Gali-2, Mangol Puri, New Delhi-83):-
1.What notice was given by the investigator to the defendants within 15 days of filing 498A under DPS-1973, Section 41A. Give a certified copy (A) If notice is not given within 15, then what permission was taken by the investigator to extend the time limit from the competent magistrate or DCP.
Give a certified copy of permission (B) If notice is given within 15, give a certified copy of the notice.
2.What action or punishment imposes on that officer who did not follow the law or instructions, Also provide the guideline or circulars related to punishment as per Police Act, Cr.PC or any other law.
3.Please let me know under which all sections of law, DCP, Women cell, DA Legal, SHO, and I/O can be punished if they have not collected, Certified and attached evidences about the claims of expenses incurred on marriage, before and after marriage as made in the complaint copy and they register FIR u/s 498 A, 406, 34 & DV Act.
4.Please supply me information on date, time & place of crime happened, if repeatedly happened so provide every one, Please also provide me, I.O details, date, time & place of investigation.
5. As per the complainant statement, she left matrimonial house on dated 18/09/2011 due to harassment, please supply the address and time of the incident with witnesses names.
6. Please supply me FIR No.68/2012 Investigation/enquiry details (happened at crime place,).
7. Please provide me FIR No.68/2012 & DV case certified FIR copy, documentary evidences collected & Charge Sheet.
8. Please supply me certified copies of the documentary evidences collected by the I.O before fixing my family into the case (collected from Jwala Puri for the allegations happened at Jwala Puri ).
9. Please supply me certified copies of the documentary evidences collected by the I.O before fixing my family into the case (collected from Mangol Puri for the allegations happened at Mangol Puri ).
The CPIO/Outer District vide letter dated 20.11.2019 replied as under:-
Page 6 of 11Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.11.2019. The FAA/DCP, Outer District vide order dated 11.12.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO. Subsequently, the PIO and Sr AO (Judicial), North West District, Rohini Courts vide letter dated 27.11.2019 informed the Appellant that the desired information related to judicial proceedings and opinion of the CPIO is sought on such matters. Explaining that the information was exempted as per Rule 7 (iv), (vi), (viii) of the Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008, it was stated that information regarding specific judicial proceedings can be obtained by following the procedures laid down in the Delhi High Court Rules and Orders.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(5) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/800021 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.10.2019 seeking information on 09 points regarding appeal against the misuse of Dowry, 498A by Mrs. Sarita & Her Brother dated 04/10/2019 in the O/o Delhi Police Commissioner, (FIR No.68/2012, PS-Mangol Puri) against Mrs Sarita & Sh. Rajinder S/o late Sh. Parbhu Singh R/o N-56, Gali-2, Mangol Puri, New Delhi-83.:-
1.As per the complainants statement, they gave 2 lacks rupees cash, 8 lacks for marriage expenses, provide the valid and relative bills of spent 8 lacks & source of income of 2 lacks with proper documentary evidences collected by Investigation officer.
2.Please supply me documentary evidences or bank statements for the transaction of 10 lakhs amount (8 lacks plus 2 lakhs).
3.Please provide documentary evidences or receipts 2 lacks, which date & time, they have given to accused mother & brother.
4.Certified copy of complainants medical or hospital records showing the physical harassment.Page 7 of 11
5.Please supply me information on when IO came to know about the incident (time, place and through which media).
6.Kindly supply information under which sections of the Cr.P.C, the investigation is carried out at Jwala Puri & Mangol Puri.
7.Please supply me certified copies of the evidences collected by the I.O specially related to Hunk motor cycle( bike) & 50000 Rs which repeatedly demanded in complaint copy of complainant by accused mother & brother before fixing my family into the case (collected from Jwala Puri for the allegations happened at Jwala Puri ).
8.Please supply me certified copies of the list of witnesses & their BYAN collected by the I.O before fixing my family into the case (collected from Jwala Puri for the allegations happened at Jwala Puri ).
9.Please supply me certified copies of the list of witnesses & their BYAN collected by the I.O before fixing my family into the case (collected from Mangol Puri for the allegations happened at Mangol Puri ).
The CPIO/Outer District vide letter dated 20.11.2019 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.11.2019. The FAA/DCP, Outer District vide order dated 11.12.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO. Subsequently, the PIO and Sr AO (Judicial), North West District, Rohini Courts vide letter dated 27.11.2019 informed the Appellant that the desired information related to judicial proceedings and opinion of the CPIO is sought on such matters. Explaining that the information was exempted as per Rule 7 (iv), (vi), (viii) of the Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008, it was stated that information regarding specific judicial proceedings can be obtained by following the procedures laid down in the Delhi High Court Rules and Orders.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 8 of 11(6) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/800022 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.10.2019 seeking information on 08 points regarding appeal against the misuse of Dowry, 498A by Mrs. Sarita & Her Brother dated 04/10/2019 in the O/o Delhi Police Commissioner, (FIR No.68/2012, PS-Mangol Puri) against Mrs Sarita & Sh. Rajinder S/o late Sh. Parbhu Singh R/o N-56, Gali-2, Mangol Puri, New Delhi-83):-
1. As per Cr.P.C- 177 to 181, investigation on the crime should have happened at the crime place (in the present case crime place was Jwala Puri). Please provide me details whether this investigation is done as per the legal procedure.
2.As per complaint, it is stated that my family members instigated me to demand dowry, does this allegation, abetting demanding dowry attracts 498-A IPC on my family members. If answer is YES, please provide the supporting reference documents for the same.
3.All the allegations reported on accused persons happened at Jwala Puri.
For the investigation on the crime happened outside your FIR registered PS limits, needs Honourable Court cognizance under Cr.P.C (156 & 170) sections, correct me if I am wrong.
A) Please supply me the permission received from Honourable Court by the investigation team to continue their investigation, B) Kindly supply me information on the legal Act with section (sub-section if any) under which Mangol Puri PS can investigate (to file charge sheet U/s- 498A IPC) for the crime FIR No.68/2012 happened at Jwala Puri.
4.Please provide me the Station House Diary, Action taken report and Roll Call of FIR.No: 68/2012 starting from 25/02/2012 to 25/06/2012 and the entire case dairy details (communication documents between I.O, Inspector of Police and ACP).
5.Please supply me information, how many times the complainant changed the BYAN & complainant application before submission of chargesheet.
6.Please supply me information, when I.O met (date, time and place) my sister, brother, parents and relatives (accused) and informed (with which medium) about the allegations on them during the investigation.
7.Please supply me the details of people with whom I.O met during his/her investigation.
8.Please supply me the documentary evidences supporting the crime by my relatives.
The CPIO/Outer District vide letter dated 20.11.2019 replied as under:-
Page 9 of 11Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.11.2019. The FAA/DCP, Outer District vide order dated 11.12.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO. Subsequently, the PIO and Sr AO (Judicial), North West District, Rohini Courts vide letter dated 27.11.2019 informed the Appellant that the desired information related to judicial proceedings and opinion of the CPIO is sought on such matters. Explaining that the information was exempted as per Rule 7 (iv), (vi), (viii) of the Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008, it was stated that information regarding specific judicial proceedings can be obtained by following the procedures laid down in the Delhi High Court Rules and Orders.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing Written submissions have been received from the Appellant's representative Shri Sunil Nigam dated 01.06.2021 in each matter and the same has been taken on record.
A written submission has also been received from the PIO and Addl. Commissioner of Police (HQ) vide letter dated 01.06.2021 wherein it was stated that the RTI applications/first appeals were transferred to the PIO, Outer District and FAA, Outer District vide communications dated 22.10.2019 and 28.11.2019 respectively.
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. He stated that complete and satisfactory information was not received by him. He referred to the response of the PIO, Outer District, Delhi Police and stated that in each of the matters, his application was transferred to the PIO, Rohini Court without actually examining the queries point wise and providing him with available information. He also expressed his dissatisfaction against the reply of the PIO, Outer District, Delhi Police on the ground that factual position regarding availability of information was not provided and that in case any information was not available with them the same should have been clearly spelt out in the reply.
Page 10 of 11He further stated that certified copies of documents were not provided by PIO, Rohini Court.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sanwal Ram Meena, ACP, Outer District; Shri Ghanshyam, ASI, Police HQ and Shri Ravi Tripathi, Rohini Court participated in the hearing through audio conference. Shri Meena stated that since the matter pertaining to the FIR filed by the Appellant has been pending trial before the Rohini Court, all the relevant documents have been transferred to the Court. He further referred to the reply provided on point no 2 of the RTI application under consideration in CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/800018 and stated that the copies of the Standing Order No 330/2008 and circular no 48/2011 were provided to the Appellant on payment of the requisite fees. Shri Ravi Tripathi stated that the certified copies of the judicial records were already provided to the Appellant. In case any of the documents were missing, the Appellant was free to approach through the judicial side, the details of which were already provided in their reply.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that proper point wise information as per available record with the outer District Delhi Police has not been provided by the PIO, Outer District. The first appeal has also been decided in all the matters wherein the reply of the CPIO is mechanically concurred with. Hence, the Commission directs the FAA and DCP, Outer District to reexamine the first appeal and pronounce a reasoned/ speaking order after granting a fair opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. The above mentioned direction should be complied with by 15.08.2021 under intimation to the Commission.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 11 of 11