Central Information Commission
Pushap Gupta vs Delhi Police on 28 April, 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
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2024/633816
Ms. Pushap Gupta निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 23.04.2025
Date of Decision : 23.04.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 03.07.2024
PIO replied on : 02.08.2024
First Appeal filed on : 07.08.2024
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 07.08.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 03.07.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"Some requisite information is required for fair justice. Some complaints were made from my house i.e. C-157, Prashant Vihar to Delhi Police. I had filed RTI earlier also but those were disposed of under some pretext. All officers (mentioned in below table) of Delhi Police came to my house (C-157, Prashant vihar) to investigate(taking statement) and sometimes I visited to PS. Prashant Vihar along with my son Vikas Gupta and met with them. So I am seeking some information from PS. Prashant Vihar Daily Diary Register II, Handwritten with statement (it might be from Daily Diary Register II form 22.48) under RTI Act 2005.
Please provide me photocopy of Daily Diary register II (handwritten with statement) of below mentioned officers which are in table below AFTER READING PARTICULARS CAREFULLY), I am providing Date/Time/GD/DD/ mobile numbers.
Page 1
Date Detail GD/ Phone IO's Particulars
Time DD No.
02/1 05:00 8178745 W/SI I met with SHO Rajiv Vats
2/22 pm to 941 Neeraj at PS Prashant Vihar at
09:00 3:29pm(entry made at
pm gate) but he sent us back
by making excuses, then
W/SI Neeraj along with a
constable Visited my
House C-157, PV at
8:00pm-02/12/22 and
took my statement but later
that statement destroyed
by PS Prashant Vihar Staff
of that time
01/1 01:00 8178745 SI I called to ACP Aarti
2/22 pm to 941 Babita Sharma (CDR
3:00p , ASI available12:34pm) and told
m Prem the incident that "Some
Ballab people forcibly entered my
h house" then SHO Rajiv
Vats send two IO's W/SI
Babita & ASI Prem Vallabh
to my house, they took our
statement but that was
destroyed by PS Prashant
Vihar staff of that time.
Etc
The CPIO, Rohini District, Delhi Police vide letter dated 02.08.2024 replied as under:-
"In this regard it is submitted that as per report received from SHO/Prashant Vihar, Rohini District, Delhi FIR No. 240/2020 and 26/2020 have been charge sheeted in the hon'ble court.
Hence, rest of the information cannot be provided U/s 8.1(h), (J) &
(g) of RTI Act-2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 07.08.2024.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 2 Written submission dated 21.04.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..As per report of SHO/Prashant Vihar, the case /FIR No. 240/2020 dated 12.09.2020 u/s 323/342/506/34 IPC complainant Pushap Gupta, Accused Arvind Gupta and Komal Gupta has been charge sheeted vide R/c no. 93/21/21 dated 09.03.2021 and the case/ FIR No. 26/2020 dated 19.01.2020 u/s 354/354-A/354B/323 IPC complainant Komal Gupta, Accused Vikas Gupta, has been charge sheeted vide R/C No. 62/21/21 dated 03.02.2021. Hence, information cannot be given as per U/s 8.1 (h, j & g) of RTI Act-2005..."
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Mr. K.P. Malik, ACP, Mr. Satendra Khari, SHO, Mr. Sandeep Rana- Prashant Rana- participated in the hearing.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been provided to the Complainant. They further apprised the Commission that the Complainant has passed away and latest submission has been sent through post at the address of the Complainant.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
Page 3 "...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
Page 4 In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act.
No further action lies.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)