Respondent: It is a marital dispute between the appellant’s son & daughter-in-law along with certain alleged relationships with a person named in the RTI application; it is personal & sensitive in nature and is before court - CIC: no intervention required
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.03.2014 seeking information regarding name and addresses of persons contacted by I.O during investigation, copy of written/oral submissions made by the persons contacted during investigation, copy of datewise notings and copy of written statement submitted by a person named in the RTI application. The CPIO responded on 24.03.2014. The appellant filed first appeal dated 12.042014 with the first appellate authority. The FAA, responded on 08.05.2014 and 24.06.2014. The appellant filed second appeal on 04.08.2014 with the Commission.
2. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing personally.
3. The appellant referred to his RTI application dated 01.03.2014 and reiterated the contents of his RTI application in which it was stated that an FIR had been lodged in the police station in connection with a family dispute between the appellant’s daughter-in-law and her husband who is appellant’s son. In this background the appellant was seeking information about the name and addresses of the persons investigated by I.O., copy of submissions made by the persons who were investigated, copy of datewise notings and other statements made by a person as referred in the RTI application. The appellant said that information was not provided to him which he was seeking. The appellant mentioned that the CPIO in his letter of 24.03.2014 had denied the information.
4. The appellant said that the Addl. DCP, West District, as FAA, gave an order dated 08.05.2014 asking the concerned CPIO to provide to the appellant the relevant documents as sought, but later on the CPIO denied the documents.
5. The respondent stated that they denied the information under the relevant sections of the RTI Act. The respondent said that the case will be decided by the court as the matter is pending in the court and the file has been submitted in the Court.
6. The appellant stated that although the case has been filed in the court but still documents are very much available in another file with the respondent.
7. The respondent said that the person mentioned in the RTI application was called for interrogation but he did not submit any paper. The respondent stated that no statement was obtained from this person and the appellant was informed accordingly on 21.05.2014.
8. The respondent stated that the files and documentation in a police station in context of the RTI Act has followed a system and the information available in form of documentation is provided as per the RTI Act provisions. The respondent stated that in the course of an investigation or an inquiry, I.O may have to rely on various pieces of evidence which help to determine the course of investigation, but these may not be available as a document.
9. The respondent stated that this is a matter of a marital dispute between the appellant’s son and daughter-in-law along with certain alleged relationships with a person named in the RTI application, hence the matter is personal and sensitive in nature. The respondent stated that the matter, in any case, is now in the court, and the relevant documentation, on which the court will rely on, is already with the appellant as per due process.
10. No intervention by the Commission is required in the matter taking into account the hearing and paras 7 and 9 above. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri G.C. Kapoor v. Delhi Police in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2014/002446/08846