Information related to GD entries of 26.03.2021 when allegedly ASI/IO Shivangi Katiyar came to the Appellant’s house to threaten her was not provided - CIC: Respondent shall re-examine the matter and send a revised reply furnishing information, as sought
15 Jan, 2024Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.06.2022 seeking information related to GD entries of 11.12.2020 and 12.12.2020 when she had visited the police station to enquiry and registration of FIR; GD entries of 26.03.2021 when allegedly ASI/IO Shivangi Katiyar came to the Appellant’s house to threaten her; certified copy of 5 complaint numbers alongwith the enquiry report submitted by EO and action taken report on her complaint.
The CPIO vide letter dated 07.07.2022 replied as under:-
“1-2. You have not mentioned any specific G.D Entry of mentioned dates which relates to you. Hence, the information sought cannot be provided to you.
3-7. You are seeking copies of documents submitted by yourself. Attention is drawn to verdict dated 17.09.2014 by Madras High Court in the matter "High Court Madras versus Central Information Commission" (WPC 26781 of 2013) wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as under:
"We fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right.... Further, those document cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act".
However, enquiry report of your complaint Nos. 500000474220849, 50000046302200893, 50000047842207261, 813804012200873 & 50000046302200346 is enclosed herewith which is self-explanatory.
8. Your asked complaint is pending enquiry with I.O SI Talwinder Singh PS Cyber Cell of East District. Hence, the requisite information cannot be provided to you at this stage.”
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.07.2022. The FAA vide order dated 23.08.2022 held as under:-
“I have gone through the relevant record and found that the PIO/East Distt. has provided the information to you against your RTI application vide this office ID No. 1121A/2022/1388/Info.Cell/East Distt. dated 07.07.2022 well in time as per RTI Act-2005 but now some update available in your RTI application. Hence, the PIO/East District is hereby directed to reconsider the RTI application of the appellant and provide a fresh reply in her RTI application within 10 working days. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.”
In compliance of the FAA’s order the PIO sent a reply dated 30.08.2022, stating as under:
This is in reference to order No. 493-494/RTI/Appeal (1" A.A.)/East District dated 23-08-2022 passed by First Appellate Authority on your First Appeal dated 26.07.2022 (Appeal-number 153/2022) against your RTI application dated 09.06.2022. As per report received from SHO/Madhu Vihar of East District, the information is as under.
1. No DD entry was lodged on 11&12.12.2020 when the applicant came in the PS for enquiry and registration of FIR.
2. No DD entry was lodged on 23.03.2021 in this regard.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 26.12.2023 making various allegations against SI Shivangi Katiyar including that she visited the Appellant’s house and pressurised her to compromise the case filed by her, failing which appropriate penal action shall be initiated as per law a cross FIR would be filed against her. The Appellant further alleged that the said SI manipulated medical examination reports of the Appellant and forced her to sign the said tampered documents.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present
Respondent: ACP Pawan Kumar and HC Omveer Singh were present during the hearing.
The Appellant contended that her prime contention was with respect to the response given by the Respondent on the query number 2, regarding GD entries of date 26.03.2021. The Respondent stated that they had attempted to provide information on most points as per available records and as permissible under the Act.
Decision:
In the light of the deliberation between parties, it is noted that the Appellant has contended that she seeks correct response specifically with respect to her query number 2. Since the remaining queries have been already responded by the Respondent appropriately, it is hereby directed that the Respondent shall re-examine the matter and send a revised reply furnishing information with respect to the query number 2, i.e. GD entries dated 26.03.2021, as sought by the Appellant.
In the event, information sought does not exist, the Respondent shall state so in the revised reply and send the same to the Appellant within three weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report before the Commission in this regard.
The appeal is thus disposed off with the above directions.
Heeralal Samariya
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Ms. Rashmi Joshi v. Delhi Police, Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2022/157120; Date of Decision : 04.01.2024