Information pertaining to the identity of the account holders in respect of certain cheques was denied u/s 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) - Appellant: misappropriation of funds alleged - CIC: information is held by bank in a fiduciary capacity; appeal rejected
Shri Rahul Kumar Goyal, hereinafter called the appellant has filed the present appeal dated 25.09.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Delhi Police, Outer District for not providing specific relevant information/ documents in response to his RTI application dated 12.7.2012. The appellant was present whereas the respondent were represented by Shri Kailash Chandra, ACP and Shri Shambhu Dayal, Inspector.
2. This matter was heard by the Commission on 19.08.2013 and the Commission vide its Interim Order of even number dated 11.9.2013, having considered the submissions of the appellant that the CPIO, vide his letter dated 13.8.2012 informed, in response to his query No. 8 of the RTI application, that Swati Kalgaonkar could not be contacted as she is a citizen of the USA and no enquiry has been conducted from her, whereas on the contrary, the appellant showed a letter dated 19.1.2012 addressed to the SHO/Prashant Vihar in which he had given Swati Kalgaonkar’s residential address in India as 73, Vikas Sheel Apartment, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi as well as her working address as GSK, Consumer Health Care Ltd, R&D Centre, Plot No. 67, Sector 32, Gurgaon held as follows:
“In view of submissions of the appellant, the matter is remitted back to the CPIO with the direction to conduct an enquiry into the matter why correct information has not been provided by the SHO/IO. The CPIO will file his written submissions before the Commission within four weeks. The matter was listed for hearing on 24.10.2013 at 1430 hrs.” Thereafter, the matter was heard on 14.10.2013.
3. In compliance with the aforementioned Interim Order of the Commission, the CPIO filed his written submissions as follows:
In this regard, the relevant record was checked and SI Mahabir Prasad, the then EO was also examined. In the present context the appellant filed a complaint dated 19.11.2012 at PS Prashant Vihar wherein he alleged that his marriage was solemnized with Ms. Swati Kalgaonkar on 24.12.2003 in presence of family members at Arya Samaj Mandir, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. At the time of marriage, Ms. Swati Kalgaonkar was declared to be unmarried to him. The said marriage was registered on 24.12.2003 under Hindu Marriage Act. It is further alleged that Ms. Swati stayed with him for 7 days at C-13/784, Sec-3, Rohini, Delhi and thereafter she left for USA on 31.12.2003. She filed a VISA application at USA (apparently for his settlement) but later on withdrew it for unknown reasons. It is also alleged that Ms. Swati and her parents also filed false affidavits declaring her to be unmarried. The said complaint further contained previous marriages record of Ms. Swati which the appellant believed to be concealed from him by Ms. Swati and her parents. He also conveyed availability of Swati at her parental home i.e. 73, Vikassheel Apartment Sec-13, Rohini Delhi and her work place address i.e. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., Gurgaon;
The enquiry report dated 1.12.2012 of the said complaint surfaced to be noncognizable in nature. Thus, it was not deemed fit to enquire into the matter in the light of these facts and circumstances. These very facts were also brought into the knowledge of the appellant who chanced upon to meet the then EO SI Mahabir Prasad in Rohini Court Complex, Rohini Delhi during pendency of the said complaint. The then EO SI Mahabir Prashad also advised him to take up this matter at appropriate platform as no police action is warranted in present complaint;
The SHO/Prashant Vihar informed that the appellant filed a complaint in April 2011 against Ms. Swati and Mr. Shashi Kalgaonkar for loding an FIR u/s 156(3) Cr. P.C. before MM, Rohini Courts Delhi. The Ld. MM dismissed the petition vide order dated 31.1.2012. He further filed Revision Petition in the Court of Shri Umed Singh Grewal, ASJ, Rohini Courts, Delhi. The Revision Petition was also dismissed by the ASJ vide order dated 28.9.2012. Further the appellant also filed an application seeking revised status report from police in the background of stay period of Ms. Swati Kalgaonkar at the above given addresses. The copy of application marked to Hon’ble Court Shri Manish Khurana, MM, who vide order dated 10.5.2013 dismissed the application seeking revised status report from police as it was not maintainable.
During further enquiry in the present reference SI Vijay Kumar of PS Prashant Vihar revealed that Ms. Swati Kalgaonkar is residing at 73, Vikas Sheel Apartment, Sector-13, Rohini with her parents. She has filed a comoplaint against the appellant in CAW Cell/OD. It also came to the notice that the appellant has also filed a complaint case u/s 156(3) Cr. P.C. in the Court of Shri Manish Khurana, MM Rohini Courts, Delhi. The next date of hearing has been fixed on 26.10.2013;
From the perusal of record during the enquiry, it is also revealed that the appellant in his RTI application dated 12.7.2012 has sought point wise information pertaining to his complaint dated 21.12.2010, in which he has nowhere mentioned the residence of Swati Kalgaonkar in Delhi. In this regard, report received from SHO/Prashant Vihar through ACP. On the basis of above said report, necessary point-wise information was provided to the appellant by the CPIO vide letter dated 13.8.2012; Since the Delhi and Gurgaon address of Swati Kalgaonkar was only provided by the appellant through his complaint dated 19.11.2012 there was no mention of the said Delhi and Gurgaon address in his earlier complaints but on the contrary the appellant was insisting about the residential address of Swati Kalgaonkar at Rohini as mentioned by him in his complaint dated 19.11.2012. This was the reason the information, sought by the appellant vide his RTI application dated 12.7.2012 was provided to him only on the basis of his RTI application pertaining to his complaint dated 21.12.2010. However, the said complaint dated 19.11.2012 of the appellant had already been enquired into and report filed on 1.12.2012.
At no stage incorrect information was provided to the appellant as well as submitted before the Commission in the matter. It was because of contents of complaint dated 19.11.2012 being non-cognizable in nature, no further inquiry was initiated and it was also not deemed fit to contact Ms. Swati Kalgaonkar in the light of contents of said complaint. However, explanation of SI Mahavir Singh, the then EO has also been called in the matter.
4. The submissions made by the CPIO are not at all convincing. It is evident that the appellant had provided the respondent with Ms. Swati Kalgaonkar’s address in India, where, it is stated, she is residing, through his complaint petition dated 19.11.2012. The present RTI application of the appellant pertains to his complaint petition dated 21.12.2010 which is subsequent to his earlier complaint dated 19.11.2012 filed before the very same respondent. It is also admitted by the SHO/Prashant Vihar, in his report dated 8.10.2013, that no enquiry was initiated on appellant’s complaint dated 21.12.2010. In view of this, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to enquire into the matter again and apprise the appellant of the outcome of the enquiry. The CPIO will comply with the directions of the Commission within four weeks of receipt of this order. The matter is accordingly disposed of on the part of the Commission with above directions/observations.
Citation: Shri Rahul Kumar Goyal v. Delhi Police in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003365