Mr Halder, who is not the Appellant or the authorised representative, did not make any specific submission about his appeal but spoke extensively about the role of CIC - Respondent: Information sought is not available on record - CIC: Response appropriate

Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.07.2024 seeking information on following points:-

I Anita Halder filing RTI application to the NCRB under section 2 f of RTI act 2005 and want to seek information under this act about the function of the office of NCRB responsible for collating information and maintaining statistics on crime and criminals at the national level and creation and maintenance of database at the national level for law enforcement agencies as the local noapara police station inspector in charge, sub inspector mobile number-7797071902 and the summon serving police official of this noapara police station pin-743144 coming under barrackpore police Commissionerate pin-700120 are directly involved in criminal activities, breaking law, doing malpractise, criminal conspiracy by sending or serving a blank witness summon to the petitioner Anita Halder residential address on 4th July 2024 for general registered case with case number WBNP150021352019, Filing number-2132slash 2019, filing date-03-07-2019 where no names of each and every witnesses of this case is being visible on the witness summon being issued from 3rd court barrackpore judicial magistrate pin700120 and further the date of the appearance of each and every witnesses for this case at this court is also not visible, hazy and unclear.

I am Anita Halder petitioner for filing case before 3rd court barrackpore judicial magistrate pin- 700120 with general registered case numberWBNP150021352019

……apart from this the blank summon being pasted silently at the premises of the petitioner Anita Halder house by the local police officials of noapara police station pin-743144 without intimating the petitioner by calling her on 4th July 2024 on her mobile number-9874805867 registered at barrackpore court pin-700120 where hazy and unclear way the names of each and every witnesses of this cases are written and there is no date mentioned for appearing before this 3rd court judicial magistrate barrackpore pin-700120 by the witnesses for this case. Sir, it is the function of the NCRB to keep the central government updated with the official records and findings related to any case as due to receiving a blank summon from the inspector in charge of noapara police station with no names of the witnesses visible on the witness summon and the date of appearance to this court the petitioner Anita Halder is not able to know that whether her name and her son kalyan halder name is there in the witness summon and to which date each and every witnesses of this case has to appear to this 3rd court barrackpore pin-700120 and the criminal conspiracy and crime being conducted by the current inspector in charge of noapara police station is that failure to attend the scheduled hearing for the blank witness summon the 3rd court barrackpore corrupted judicial magistrate doing biased judiciary will get a scope or chance to issue warrants against the witnesses namely Anita Halder, her son kalyan halder if their names are there in the witness summon.”

The CPIO, National Crime Record Bureau, New Delhi vide letter dated 31.07.2024 replied as under:-

“…………it is informed that under the provisions of RTI Act 2005, only such information is supplied which is held by or under the control of Public Authority under section 2(J) of RTI Act 2005. With respect to your RTI, no information is held by CPIΟ.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.07.2024. The FAA vide order dated 21.08.2024 upheld the reply of CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 21.08.2025 has been received from the CPIO, NCRB reiterating the PIO’s reply and specifying that information sought relates to summons being issued to the Appellant for appearing in Court hearings. No information or document in this regard is held by the CPIO, NCRB and hence the Appellant was informed accordingly.

A submission has been received from one Kalyan Halder who has not established his locus in this case. He has not sought any specific information nor made any prayer under the RTI Act.

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Heard through audio conference

Respondent: Shri D Bhattacharjee - AD, NCRB was present during hearing.

Shri Kalyan Halder, who is not the Appellant nor the authorised representative in the matter spoke over telephone did not wish to make any specific submission about his appeal but spoke extensively about the role of the CIC instead. The Respondent placed reliance on the PIO’s reply, FAA’s order and the written submission dated 21.08.2025 mentioned hereinabove, stating that information sought by the Appellant is not available on record with the public authority and hence he was informed accordingly, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act.

Decision:

Perusal of records of the case reveals that appropriate response has been duly provided to the Appellant.

The Respondent is directed to send a copy of the written submission dated 21.08.2025, to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within one week thereafter. Since the response of the PIO is found legally and factually appropriate, no further intervention is deemed necessary in this case, under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Ms. Anita Halder v. National Crime Record Bureau, Second Appeal No. CIC/NCREB/A/2024/638488; Date of Decision : 04.09.2025