Central Information Commission
Anshul Gupta vs Delhi Police on 30 September, 2020
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal Nos. CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/159421
CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/159744
CIC/DEPOL/C/2018/159743
Shri Anshul Gupta ... अपीलकता/Appellant
Through: video conference
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO,Delhi Police, O/o the ADCP-I, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
North West District, Ashok Vihar, Delhi - 110052
Through: video conference : Sh. Swadesh
Prakash-ACP, SB; Inspector Rajendra Singh
PIO, AO(Judicial), Rohini Courts, O/o District &
Sessions Judge(North West District), Rohini,
Delhi
Through: Smt. Rani Tripathi -JJA, Ms. Veena
Dewan - PIO
Date of Hearing : 24.08.2020, 30.09.2020
Date of Decision : 30.09.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO First FAO's Complaint/SA
Nos. on reply's Appeals dated
159421 17.03.2018 12.04.2018 08.05.2018 05.06.2018 17.09.2018
159744 05.03.2018 03.04.2018 09.05.2018 03.06.2018 17.09.2018
159743 05.03.2018 03.04.2018 08.05.2018 05.06.2018 17.09.2018
CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/159421
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 17.03.2018 seeking information on following points. The requisite information is as under:-Page 1 of 7
Under Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, please provide me with a copy of the following trough registered post:
The copy of recovery notice served to me - Anshul Gupta by investigation Officer to recover stridhan of Complainant-Ashima Garg as mentioned by IO WSI Bharti in her writtenstatement reply Para 2 on 06.10.207 and Para 2 on 24.10.2017 (annexed along) in Bail Application 3291/2017 with CNR D1NW010099022017 Supporting details such as a. lf served by post - Recovery Notice, Date of posting, Registered Post Agency, Registered post tracking number.
b. lf served in person - Recovery Notice, date of serving, along with necessary person endorsement/ acknowledgement.
c. lf served by SMS and or email - SMS copy and or email copy, date along with necessary details. d. lf any other means please specify the details along with necessary supporting document(s) as evidence.
(Queries Reproduced Verbatim) The PIO/ADCP-I, Delhi Police furnished a reply to the appellant vide letter dated 12.04.2018 informing the appellant that as per report of SHO PS Shalimar Bagh, case FIR No. 74/16 has already been chargesheeted and sent to Rohini Court, Delhi vide RC No. 24/21/18 dated 15.02.218.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 08.05.2018. The FAA vide order dated 05.06.2018 stated as follows:
".....The undersigned has carefully considered the contention put-forth by the appellant in his online appeal dated 08.05.2018, initial online RTI application dated 17.03.2018 and information provided by PIO/NW. District vide letter dated 12.04.2018. Upon consideration, it has been found that the PIO/NWD 12.04.2018 has already informed the appellant that case FIR No. 74/16 has already been charge sheeted and sent to Rohini Court, Delhi vide RC No. 24/21/18 dated 15.02.2018. Moreover, appellant's RTI application dated 17.03.2018 was also sent to PIO/Rohini District, Delhi for raking further necessary action under RTI Act-2005. Besides, on the appellant's appeal, afresh report is again obtained from SHO/Shalimar Bagh through ACP/Shalimar Bagh/NWD, Delhi in which SHO/Shalimar Bagh has furnished point wise reply along with copy of notice on appellant's appeal. The copy of SHO/PS Shalimar along with enclosures is enclosed hereby (Total 02 pages)for the information of the appellant which is self explanatory. With these observations, the appeal of the appellant is disposed off accordingly ....."Page 2 of 7
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 and considering the specific request of the Appellant, the hearing of the case is held through video conference. Both parties are duly represented during the hearing. Appellant has placed forth extensive arguments providing details of his matrimonial dispute case pointing out flaws in investigation, he believes, which have crept in the proceedings and vitiated the same, due to action/omission on the part of the Respondent- police authorities. Since the PIO, Delhi Police had already stated vide reply dated 12.04.2018 that the desired information had been submitted before the Rohini Court, the relevant Court officials' input are sought. The Respondent from Rohini Court states that the Appellant can obtain the necessary documents, by filing application for obtaining certified copy, as per the Court Rules. Appellant avers that he had inspected the entire Court records, but did not find the relevant document, which he had sought from Delhi police, viz. the recovery notice claimed to have been served for recovery of stridhan of Complainant-wife of the appellant. Hence, he reiterates that he seeks the said recovery notice. At this juncture, the representative of Delhi Police pointed out that the recovery notice dated 17.02.2017 from SHO/PS Shalimar Bagh had been provided to the Appellantalongwith the FAA's order, which the Appellant contests stating it is a bogus document.
Decision Upon careful perusal of the document indicated by the Delhi Police as the recovery notice served for recovery of stridhan of Complainant-Appellant's wife, it is noted that the said document dated 17.02.2017, issued by ASI Raj Bahadur Singh from PS Shalimar Bagh directed the Appellant to join investigation with admit list of stridhan on 23.02.2017. Therefore, the contention of the Respondent appears to be convincing. Be that as it may, in order to satisfy the query of the Appellant, the Respondent from Delhi Police - Sh. Swadesh Prasad - ACP, Shalimar Bagh is hereby directed to furnish a revised reply, confirming that the document annexed as Annexure F with the Second Appeal by the Appellant is the recovery notice claimed to have been served for recovery of stridhan of Complainant-wife of the Appellant. This revised reply should be sent to the Appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order, marking a copy of compliance report before the Commission alongwith proof of service on the Appellant, by 31.10.2020.Page 3 of 7
CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/159744 Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 05.03.2018 seeking information on six points. The requisite information is as under:-
1. Please provide me details and the copy of the ruwangi record of the raid conducted by I/O on 27.10.2017 from the records kept at the P.S Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi.
2. Please provide details of all the police officials visited at my parental home on 27.10.2017 from the records kept at P.S. Shalimar Bagh (along with the copy of the record).
3. Please provide me with the copy of daily diary entry kept at P.S. Shalimar Bagh capturing all the details of this aforesaid incident on 27.10.2017.
4. Since this incident is conducted outside the jurisdiction of The State of Delhi, So the I/O needs to prior inform the local Gurgaon Police Station about the aforesaid incident. Please provide me details of same from the records.
Please provide the details of the Police Station informed in Gurgaon, along with the copy of communication and the daily diary entry record kept at the concerned local Police Station capturing the aforesaid incident details.
5. Please provide me with a copy of ALL the daily diary entry records kept at P.S. Shalimar Bagh capturing all the details from logging of FIR No 0074/2016 Dated 20th January 2016 registered at P.S. Shalimar Bagh.
6. Has the I/O took any magistrate or senior officials approval for the raid conducted on 27.10.2017 at my parental home. If so, please provide me with a copy of the order and/or the record capturing the details of the aforesaid incident of 27th Oct 2017.
(Queries Reproduced Verbatim) The PIO/ADCP-1, Delhi Police furnished reply to the appellant vide letter dated 03.04.2018.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 09.05.2018. The FAA vide order dated 03.06.2018 stated as follows "...xxxxxxxxxxxx".
".....The undersigned has carefully considered the contention put-forth by the appellant in his online appeal dated 09.05.2018, initial online RTI application dated 05.03.2018 and information provided by PIO/NW. District vide letter dated 03.04.2018. Upon consideration, it has been found that the PIO/NWD, Delhi vide letter dated 03.04.2018 has already provided the correct and complete available information to the appellant within stipulated time period. Besides, on the appellant's appeal, afresh report is again obtained from SHO/Shalimar Bagh through ACP/Shalimar Bagh/NWD, Delhi in which SHO/Shalimar Bagh has furnished the point wise reply in respect of point Nos. 4 & 6 of RTI application and also provided the copy of the DD entry lodged at P.S. Sector-56, Gurgaon. The copy of SHO/PS Shalimar along with enclosures is enclosed hereby for the information of Page 4 of 7 the appellant which is self explanatory. With these observations, the appeal of the appellant is disposed off accordingly ....."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 and considering the specific request of the Appellant, the hearing of the case is held through video conference. Both parties are duly represented during the hearing. Appellant states that he sought copy of the approval mentioned as query number 6 of his RTI application, but he has been provided incorrect and misleading documents which do not answer this specific requirement. Respondent states that all raids are done with approval of senior officials and the movement of officials is indicated by entry in DD register, which has been provided to the Appellant. Since no written approval exists in this regard, hence the same has not been provided.
Decision In the light of the aforementioned facts of the case, the Commission hereby directs the Respondent from Delhi Police - Sh. Swadesh Prasad - ACP, Shalimar Bagh to furnish a revised reply, stating clearly and specifically that no copy of written approval is available with the Respondent, in their official records. This revised reply should be sent to the Appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order, marking a copy of compliance report before the Commission alongwith proof of service on the Appellant, by 31.10.2020.
CIC/DEPOL/C/2018/159743 Information sought and background of the case:
The Complainant filed RTI application dated 05.03.2018 seeking information on eight points. The requisite information is as under:-
1. Copy of Courts Order U/S Section 9, District Judge Ritu Y.K. Behl, Gurgaon Dated 26th November 2015 stating that Ashima Garg (respondent) does not want to stay with petitioner husband under any condition.
2. Copy of Gynecologist OPD assessment of complainant Ashima Garg Dated 28.04.2014 prior to Honeymoon.
3. Copy of Gynecologist OPD report of complainant Ashima Garg and Cash receipt Dated 02.08.2015 PARAS Hospital, Gurgaon.
4. Complete Police Complaint 234-SP II dated 24.05.2015 including written statement of Sh. Ved Prakash Jindal, stating that BACHO MEIN APAS ME CHHOTI MOTI TAKRAR HUI THI MERI BETI NE 100 NO. PAR PHONE KAR DIYA THA, AB HAMARA SAMJAUTHA HO GAYA HAI, at P.S. Sushant Lok I, Gurgaon.Page 5 of 7
5. Complete Police Complaint dated 13.08.2015 containing certified copy of written statement by complaint Ashima Garg stating she does not want any further proceedings against me.
6. Proof of accused/husband admission confirmation and copy of fees receipts paid by Anshul Gupta.
7. Whatsapp conversation copy dated 23.02.2014 about no car wanted by accused/husband Anshul Gupta.
8. DVD containing 4 videos dated 14th August 2017 showing the true conduct of Ashima and also taking all the belongings and valuables along with Sh. Ved Prakash Jindal, Sh. J.B. Bansal and relatives in multiple suitcases and bags.
In all 26 Pages of documents & DVD of video of desertion (Queries Reproduced Verbatim) The PIO/ADCP, Delhi Police furnished reply to the appellant vide letter dated 03.04.2018, annexing statement dated 31.03.2018 signed by SI Bharati.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.05.2018, the FAA vide order dated 05.06.2018 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO and disposed of his first appeal.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 and considering the specific request of the Complainant, the hearing of the case is held through video conference. Both parties are duly represented during the hearing. Complainant claims to have submitted 8 documentary proofs and requested to be put up in Court file, in support of his case. But the documents were not put up with the Court file to be adjudicated by the Presiding Officer at the Court. The respondent has furnished a reply stating that since the veracity and relevance of the documents were not explained, the said documents were not made part of judicial file but the same were attached with the police file. The complainant claims that the response furnished by the Respondent is factually incorrect and misleading, while the Respondent has averred that the documents have been attached with the police file for the reason stated by the SI. Hence, the same is within the purview of the Judicial Officer, if deemed necessary.
Decision Upon hearing both parties, the Commission notes that information as available on record has been duly made available by the Respondent officials. No malafide is found from the reply of the Respondent, which is self explanatory as such. Hence, no further proceeding is deemed necessary in this case.Page 6 of 7
The cases stand disposed off with the respective directions, as mentioned against each case.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . िस हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26180514 Page 7 of 7