Respondent referred to Section 172(3) CrPC and submitted that relevant documents as per the directions of the CIC were provided while the appellant sought inspection of files related to FIR - CIC: The respondent have complied with the order of CIC
1. The Commission vide its order No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000552 dated 25.02.2016 had directed the CPIO, South East District, Delhi Police to provide information in response to the RTI application filed by the appellant within a period of four weeks.
2. The complainant Mrs. Roma Dutta filed a complaint dated 02.05.2016 alleging partial compliance of the Commission’s order on the grounds that she has been denied the certified copy of the police file.
3. Shri Pradeep Dutta representing the complainant Mrs. Roma Dutta and the respondent Inspector Sanjeev and S.I. Sanjeev Kumar, Delhi Police were present in person.
4. The complainant submitted that the Commission had vide its decision dated 25.02.2016 in file no. CIC/SB/A/2015/000552 directed the respondent to provide information in response to her RTI application dated 21.09.2015. But, the said decision has not been fully complied with so far.
5. The respondent submitted that in compliance with the Commission’s order dated 25.02.2016, the complainant was requested, vide letter dated 04.04.2016 to visit PS Greater Kailash to inspect the Police files relating to FIR No. 33/02 and 34/02. The respondent also stated that the complainant was also informed vide letter dated 03.05.2016 that he would be provided only relevant documents as per the directions of the Commission. The respondent further submitted that the complainant was informed vide letter dated 23.06.2016, in response to his applications dated 23.05.2016 and 22.06.2016, that five letters dated 04.04.2016, 03.05.2016, 11.05.2016, 17.06.2016 and 20.05.2016 have already been sent to her to collect the relevant documents in compliance with CIC’s decision dated 25.02.2016 in file no. CIC/SB/A/2015/000552, but she has not come to the PS Greater Kailash for the purpose. The respondent further submitted that although the RTI application has been filed in the name of Smt. Roma Dutta, but in effect the matter is being pursued by her son namely Shri Pradeep Dutta, who incidentally is an accused in FIR No.33/02 and is an interested party in FIR No.34/02, which is a cross FIR. The respondent further submitted that as per the provisions of Section 172(3) CrPC “Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the Court…….”
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the respondent have complied with the order of the Commission dated 25.02.2016. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
7. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
8. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Mrs. Roma Dutta v. Delhi Police in Decision No. CIC/SB/C/2016/000272 Dated 16.02.2017