Daily Archives: July 29, 2012

Husband , accused NOT entitled to complaint copy if complaint is closed

Husband , accused NOT entitled to complaint copy if complaint is closed … SO problem in compromise cases !!!!

We had already mentioned in an earlier post here that an accused has a right to get a copy of the police complaint. RTI Central Information commisssion [CIC] had held so

Now the Honble CIC has held that the Husband , accused NOT entitled to complaint copy if complaint is closed …

SO this is bound to be a problem in compromise cases !!!! … i.e. you WILL NOT EVEN get a copy of the complaint after the “abla nari ” has run away with the money !!!

==========================

Central Information Commission

Mr.Wg Cdr Avinash Surma vs Delhi Police on 30 April, 2012

Central Information Commission

Room No. 305 B­Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,

Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi – 110066

Tel No: 26167931

Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001623

Dated: 30.4.2012

Name of the Appellant : Wg. Cdr. Avinash Surma(Rtd). (The Appellant was Present)

Name of the Public Authority : Delhi Police, South West District. Represented by Shri Zile Singh, APIO

and Shri Ramesh, Head Const.

The matter was heard on : 18.4.2012

ORDER

Wg. Cdr. Avinash Surma(Rtd), the appellant, filed an application dated 6.4.2011 under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 seeking information from the respondent. The CPIO, vide his letter dated 10.5.2011 replied to the appellant, however, a copy of the complaint filed by Smt. Shruti Surma (nee Ms. Shruti Trehan) was denied to the appellant on the grounds that this information/document falls under the category of personal 3rd party information as per section 11 of the RTI Act. The procedure for the same was adopted and a notice was issued to Smt. Shruti Trehan for her consent but she did not agree to supply her personal information to the appellant. However a copy of the final report was provided to the appellant. Aggrieved with the reply, the appellant filed an appeal before the FAA. The FAA, vide his order dated 23.5.2011 has held that the CPIO while disposing of the matter adopted the provisions of section 11 of the RTI Act but Smt. Shruti Trehan has denied the same mentioning that “the information sought by the appellant must not be disclosed as the same is personal and confidential in nature and disclosure could not serve any public interest. Further the provisions of RTI Act safeguard the right of privacy of the individuals and unless the information sought is in public interest, the same should not be divulged.” Ms. Shruti also mentioned in her reply that the contents of information sought are already within the knowledge of the applicant and the marriage of Mr. Sudhanshu Surma, son of appellant and Mrs. Shruti Trehan already stands dissolved vide order dated 28.2.2011 passed by the competent Court. Aggrieved with the order of FAA, the appellant has field the present appeal before the Commission. The appellant has prayed that the documents requested by him in his application should be provided to him since the complaint filed by Ms. Shruti Trehan before the police is not her personal or confidential information nor is it 3rd party information and the RTI Act does not bar disclosure of this information.

During the hearing the respondent submit that as part of mutual settlement for closure of complaint filed by Ms. Shruti in CAW, a compromise was reached between the parties i.e. the former daughter-in-law and son of the appellant. In terms of this mutual settlement arrived at, Ms. Shruti Trehan, on her part, agreed for closure of complaint filed in CAW Cell, Dwaraka, New Delhi. The mutual settlement has been signed by Ms. Shruti Surma(nee Ms. Shruti Trehan) and Shri Sudhanshu Surma. Shri Avinash Surma, the appellant and father of Shri Sudhanshu Surma has signed the documents as one of the witnesses.

Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the view that the complaint filed by Ms. Shruti Surma (nee Shruti Trehan) has been closed by the respondent on the basis of mutual settlement arrived at between Ms. Shruti Surma (nee Ms Shruti Trehan) and Mr. Sudhanshu Surma.

Since the matter has been closed by the Police and no action thereon is now required to be taken by them in view of closure report filed by the Police, the Commission is of the view that complaint filed by Ms. Shruti Surma cannot be provided to the appellant in view of section 8 (i) (j) read with section 11 (2) of the RTI Act. No larger public interest has been established by the appellant for the disclosure of this information. The reply of the respondents are therefore, upheld.

The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.

Sd/-

(Sushma Singh)

Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy:

(D.C. Singh)

Deputy Registrar

Copy to:

1. Wg. Cdr. Avinash Surma(Rtd),
EA-331, Maya Enclave,
New Delhi – 110064.

2. The C.P.I.O.
The Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police,
O/o the Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police,
South West district,
Sector-19, Dwarka,
New Delhi – 110075.

3. The First Appellate Authority,
The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
O/o the Dy. Commissioner of Police,
South West district,
Sector-19, Dwarka,
New Delhi – 110075.

Advertisements

RTI : A person complained against has a right to obtain a copy of that complaint : The Commission has repeatedly held that on a complaint has been filed against a person, the contents of such complaint are no more treated as confidential.

“…….The Commission has repeatedly held that on a complaint has been filed against a person, the contents of such complaint are no more treated as confidential. This is so because the complaint has been filed to set the machinery of the State in motion and if the competent authority acts upon it, for example, by lodging an FIR, a copy of the complaint will have to be supplied to the person complained against. A person complained against has a right to obtain a copy of that complaint, irrespective of whether counseling has been initiated on the basis of that complaint………..”

=========================

Central Information Commission
Mr.Dr Naveen Yadav vs Delhi Police on 29 June, 2012

Central Information Commission

Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, ‘B’ Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,  Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi­110066

Web: http://www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931

Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000666

Dated: 29.06.2012

Name of Appellant : Dr. Naveen Yadav

Name of Respondent : Delhi Police, South West District

Date of Hearing : 13.06.2012

ORDER

Dr. Naveen Yadav, hereinafter called the appellant has filed the present appeal dated 9.12.2011 before the Commission against the respondent Delhi Police, South West District for denial of information in reply to his RTI application dated 20.7.2011. The matter came up for hearing on 13.06.2012. The appellant, accompanied by his advocate was present whereas the respondent were represented by Shri Zile Singh, APIO and Shri Ramesh, Head Constable.

2. The appellant had filed an application dated 20.7.2011 under the provisions of the RTI Act , in which he sought copy of complaint No. 2192 filed by his wife before the CAW Cell. The CPIO vide letter No. 8082 (ID-1765)DIC/SWD dated 5.8.2011 replied to the appellant informing him that above mentioned complaint cannot be provided to him under the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

3. Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 24.8.2011 before the FAA. The FAA vide order No. (162)/RTIA/2011(SWD)/306- 307/AA/SWD dated 15.9.2011 upheld the reply of the CPIO. Neither respondent 2 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000666

have explained how the disclosure of the information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

4. During the hearing the respondent submit that Circular dated 20.3.2012 from the Addl. DCP, SPU-W&C, Nanakpura, New Delhi, the CPIO, vide letter No.212-13 dated 25.5.2012 provided a copy of the complaint to the appellant filed by appellant’s wife Dr. Suruchi Yadav in the CAW Cell/SWD.

5. The Commission has repeatedly held that on a complaint has been filed against a person, the contents of such complaint are no more treated as confidential. This is so because the complaint has been filed to set the machinery of the State in motion and if the competent authority acts upon it, for example, by lodging an FIR, a copy of the complaint will have to be supplied to the person complained against. A person complained against has a right to obtain a copy of that complaint, irrespective of whether counseling has been initiated on the basis of that complaint.

6. Since a copy of complaint filed by Dr. Suruchi Yadav, as sought for by the appellant has been provided to the appellant by the respondent, the matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.

(Sushma Singh)

Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy:

(K.K. Sharma)

OSD & Deputy Registrar

3 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000666

Address of the parties:

Dr. Naveen Yadav

S/O Shri Kanwar Singh Yadav,

RZ-M-31, Phase-4, Prem Nagar,

Najafgarh,

New Delhi-110043.

The Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police & CPIO, Delhi Police, South West District,

Sector 19, Dwarka,

New Delhi-110075.

The Addl. Commissioner of Police & FAA,

Delhi Police, South West District,

Sector 19, Dwarka,

New Delhi-110075.

source

indiankanoon. org

Filing an FIR …forget it …. err… IF you are not a young wife !! :-(

Filing an FIR …forget it …. err…  IF you are not a young wife !! 😦

if you are young wife filing a false 498a case, you will get VIP treatment

——————————————————————————————————-

Honest citizens of this country find it increasingly difficult to even register an FIR for genuine crimes !! Let alone investigation and solutions, even filing and FIR is not easy !! Basic write ups on filing and FIR start telling people to move to higher ups or file petitions and RTI !!  http://bit.ly/PbZpSI

….and EVEN after FIR is filed in many a case justice is NOT done !! ;-(  a sample HERE http://bit.ly/OojYjX

However false 498a are filed regularly … men are harassed…. families commit suicide and still the false 498a industry continues to thrive 😦 😦

———–

Lady Police (sister in law of shri 498a !!) in the doc! Use of RTI against police woman !!

Lady Police (sister in law of shri 498a !!) in the doc! Use of RTI against police woman !!

Central Information Commission
Mr.Rahul Arora vs Delhi Police on 22 March, 2012
Central Information Commission

Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, ‘B’ Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,  Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi­110066

Web: http://www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931

Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001819

Dated: 22.03.2012

Name of Appellant : Shri Rahul Arora

Name of Respondent : Delhi Police, East District

Date of Hearing : 14.03.2012

ORDER

Shri Rahul Arora, the appellant has filed the present appeal dated 23.5.2011 before the Commission against the respondent Delhi Police, East District for providing not providing information on Point No. 5, 6 and 7 of his RTI-application dated 22.1.2011. The matter came up for hearing on 14.03.2012. The appellant was present and the respondent were represented by Shri Asif Mohd. Ali, Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police & CPIO and Shri Anant Kumar, Incharge RTI Cell.

2. The appellant had filed RTI application dated 25.3.2011 addressed to CPIO, Delhi Police, PHQ, New Delhi seeking information on the following eight queries in respect of complaint filed by Ms. Arti Verma on 9.3.2010 on a matter regarding complaint of domestic violence, which is pending with the Crime Against Women Cell, Krishna Nagar – ”

(1) Please provide information as to how many hearings have been conducted since the filing of the complaint till date. Also provide information on the number of hearings attended by Mr. Sanjay Verma, husband of Ms. Arti Verma of the total number of hearings held. Please provide documents justifying his absenteeism on the hearings;

(2) Please provide information on the number of hearings attended by the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of Arti Verma, who have been named as accused in the complaint. Please provide documents suggesting the efforts of the Crime Against Women Cell to bring them to the hearing, copies of reason of absenteeism submitted, copies of exclusion granted by the Cell;

(3) Please provide the details of the proceedings of each hearing with copies of the relevant documents;

(4) Please provide the information on the number of hearings as well as time taken by the accused Mr. Sanjay Verma, husband of Ms. Arti Verma on submitting the dowry list with the Crime Against Women Cell;

(5) Please provide information as to in which Department of the Delhi Police one of the accused sister-in-law of Ms. Arti Verma, Ms Rekha Ranjan, is employed and in what capacity;

(6) Please provide information on the rules laid down by the Delhi Police for employees accused under some complaint proceedings; and

(7) Please provide information on the action taken by the Delhi Police on the application filed by Ms. Arti Verma dated August 23, 2010 to the Commissioner of Police. Please provide copies of the relevant supporting documents.”

The CPIO vide his reply dated 1.3.2011 informed the appellant that as per report received from SHO, Geeta Colony, a case vide FIR No. 44/11 has been registered on the complaint of Ms. Arti Verma at PS Geeta Colony.

The same is pending investigation, hence information cannot be provided as exempted u/s 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act.

3. However, not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first-appeal on 26.3.2011 before the FAA. The CPIO vide his letter dated 11.5.2011 provided the appellant with copy of complaint, attendance sheet and day to day progress report. The appellant was informed that the case FIR No. 412/11 is still pending investigation with SI Jagan Punia of PS Geeta Colony who is on medical rest.

4. In the second appeal the appellant submits that he has not been provided information on Point No. 5, 6 and 7 of his RTI application.

5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and perused the relevant documents on file, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO, Delhi Police, East District to provide requisite information on Point No. 5 to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order. On Point No. 7 the CPIO, Delhi Police, PHQ is hereby directed to provide requisite information to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order. The queries raised by the appellant on Point No. 6 are vague. 3 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001819

The matter is disposed of with the above directions/observations.

(Sushma Singh)

Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy:

(K.K. Sharma)

OSD & Deputy Registrar

Address of the parties:

Shri Rahul Arora,
108, State Bank Nagar,
Pashim Vihar,
New Delhi-110063.

The Addl. Commissioner of Police & CPIO,
Delhi Police, East District,
Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi.

The Addl. Commissioner of Police & CPIO,
Delhi Police, Police Headquarters,
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.

The Deputy Commissioner of Police & FAA,
Delhi Police, East District,
Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi.