Central Information Commission
Rachit Dev vs Delhi Police on 9 September, 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/2023/628875
Shri Rachit Dev ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 06.09.2024
Date of Decision : 06.09.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.03.2023
PIO replied on : 13.04.2023
First Appeal filed on : 12.05.2023
First Appellate Order on : 07.06.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 12.06.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.03.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"I am a permanent resident of 3002-A/38, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi: 110005. My wife, Smt. Shobhna Singh, had filed a complaint dated 17-May-2022 (No.355) with CAW Cell, East District, Delhi which got converted to FIR number 0584 dated 6-December-2022 is related to your department/office. Kindly provide me the following information under 'Right to Information Act 2005' and fundamental 'right to life and liberty":
1. What are the roles and responsibilities of Crime Against Women (CAW) cells of Delhi Police? Do they conduct enquiry/investigation or try to make compromise / settlement among husband and wife? According to the notice received by the accused, signed by SI Gavender Sharma, it is only about the enquiry and deposing the version of the accused.
2. Is it the routine procedure of the CAW cell investigating officer SI Gavender Sharma to harass the accused by using casteist slurs, shouting, intimidating the accused using jail sentence, beating the desk and also by giving the next dates and remaining absent on the date himself and no update was ever provided on the phone? According to the supreme court judgement number 3543 of 2nd December 2020, all the Page 1 Police stations must have CCTV cameras installed with voice facility. Why were all the proceedings / hearings with SI Gavender Sharma, ACP Pankaj Sharma, DCP Achin Garg and SI Sangeeta Sharma not recorded on CCTV with voice with the complainant as well as the accused?
3. If any person is not satisfied with the conduct of the CAW cell's investigating officer and his/her superiors, where can he / she file a complaint against them?
4. There were phone numbers written on a board inside the CAW cell for contact if a person is not satisfied by the conduct of CAW cell official. All the numbers mentioned on the board were not working, what can be done in such a scenario? Copy attached of the notice board photo taken on 17th June 2022. The accused also mailed the reply of complaint and a hand written complaint of SI Gavender Sharma to ACP Pankaj Sharma on 12th July 2022 via registered post. Why no action was taken by ACP Pankaj Sharma against SI Gavender Sharma?
5. If the DCP under whom the CAW cell East Delhi comes, is contacted via twitter for appointment to explain his side of story, the DCP doesn't respond on twitter and there is no other way to communicate or meet him (phone numbers mentioned on the notice board never worked), what can be done in such a scenario? Copy attached of Twitter direct message on 25th October 2022.
6. Describe the whole procedure of converting a complaint to FIR from CAW cell to the police station, properly use all the IPC and Cr.P.C. sections involved and the procedure of investigation with time limits. Is the complaint properly read before filing the FIR by the CAW cell officials as well as the IO/SI who converts the complaint into the FIR? If there are contradictions available in the complaint then on what basis the complaint is considered as fit for the FIR?
7. On what basis, it is decided that the complaint has to be converted to the FIR by the CAW cell officials? There are genuine reasons for a husband to stay away from wife and already a mediation on husband's complaint was deliberately failed by the wife in Noida, Uttar Pradesh where they were residing then how the FIR is registered in such a scenario at Delhi?
8. Can an FIR be registered against more than one accused without listening to all the accused story and without even sending them any notice or even a phone call, without evidence how an FIR is recommended in the first place by the CAW cell? The accused's senior citizen parents were never sent any notice nor were even given a phone call and directly an FIR was registered against them.
9. Is jurisdiction ever considered in filing the FIR? Are the investigation officer SI Gavender Sharma and his superiors ACP Pankaj Sharma and DCP Achin Garg at the CAW cells aware about the Cr.P.C. 177, 178, 179 sections before filing/recommending the FIR?
10. When the husband and wife stay in Noida and a mediation through Noida Police on husband's complaint happened during a dispute between them which got failed, then how come CAW cell of Delhi police can intervene in such a scenario and ask the accused and complainant to stay together at Noida, where they have no jurisdiction? SI Gavender Sharma sent a WhatsApp disappearing message notice and blocked the Page 2 accused thereafter, the address mentioned on the notice is accused's permanent address of Delhi where he never stayed with his wife after the marriage, is it right to make criminal jurisdiction by the CAW cell official in such a manner? Copy of the screenshot of the notice attached.
11. And other related information."
The CPIO vide letter dated 13.04.2023 replied as under:-
"1 to11&13 to 17:- The asked information is in nature of query and seeking such type of information does not come under the purview of Information as per section 2(f) of RTI Act-2005. Hence, the requisite information cannot be provided.
12 Gavender Sharma-Sub Inspector Enquiry Officer. Pankaj Sharma-ACP/CAW Cell/ East District. Achin Garg-Addl. DCP-II/East District.
Ramesh Prasad -SHO Laxmi Nagar, Address- Ramesh Park Gali no. 10, New Delhi-110092."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.05.2023. The FAA vide order dated 07.06.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present along with Mr. Virendra Kumar.
Respondent: Mr. Yashwant Rai Sival, ACP, HQ, East District and Mr. Omveer Singh, Head Constable, RTI Cell, East District- participated in the hearing.
The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that the proper enquiry has not been conducted by the CAW Cell and the information as sought in the instant RTI Application has not been provided.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly provided to the Appellant. He stated that the information sought by the Appellant is clarificatory in nature do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act. He stated that the details of the enquiry officer of the case have been duly provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the Page 3 provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent since only such information that is held and available with a public authority can be provided to the information seekers and giving reasons/ opinions/ interpretations, etc are beyond the scope of duty of the CPIO. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. The 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 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)