Daily Archives: February 9, 2015

PIOs, AIOs, First Appellate auth Delhi Police undr RTI. Telephone etc Dt. 02 06 2014

LIST OF ASSISTANT PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS, PUBLIC INFORAMATION OFFICERS AND FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITIES OF DELHI POLICE DESIGNATED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT -2005

PIOs, AIOs, First Appellate auth Delhi Police undr RTI. Telephone etc Dt. 02 06 2014.pdf

Delhi Police to provide complaint copy, related info. Shri Rahul Arora Vs Delhi Police, East District


* "……….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……."

****************************************************
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, ‘B’ Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: 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 Com missioner 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.

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:

DELHI police say complaint NOT avilable as SHO retired ! CIC asks police to provide copies !!


Husband files RTI to get copies of wife’s complaint and related details …. Delhi police say no copies are available as the SHO has retired !!


"………the Commission is of the view that there is merit in the contention put forth by the appellant that the relevant records must be available at PS Prashant Vihar, which is a Government property and the retiring police official must handover the relevant records to the SHO/concerned staff. The Commission hereby directs the CPIO to locate the concerned file and provide copy of complaint dated 9.9.2005 along with relevant documents to the appellant………"

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF – Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

Central Information Commission

Mr.Rahul Kumar Goyal vs Delhi Police on 13 September, 2013

Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, ‘B’ Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi­110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931

Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003232
Dated: 13.09.2013

Name of Appellant : Shri Rahul Kumar Goyal
Name of Respondent : Delhi Police, Outer District
Date of Hearing : 19.08.2013

ORDER

Shri Rahul Kumar Goyal, hereinafter called the appellant has filed the present appeal dated 10.09.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Delhi Police, Outer District for not providing complete information in response to his RTI application dated 16.4.2012. The appellant was present whereas the respondent were represented by Shri M.A. Rizvi, Addl.DCP/CPIO, Shri Shambhoo Dayal, Inspector, Shri Krishanpal, ASI, Shri Rajender, SHO/Prashant Vihar.

2. The appellant through his RTI application dated 16.4.2012 sought information on the following four queries: "(1) Whether his father in law Shashikant Kalgaonkar made police complaint dated 8.2.2005, 5.9.2005, 16.12.2005, 16.6.2008, 6.2.2011, 9.5.2011, 1.6.2011, 2.6.2011 against him and his family members or any other police complaint by him; (2) What action has been taken on these police complaints; (3) What are the documents attached with these police complaints; and (4) Please provide copies of all police complaints with all the attachments and statements given by his wife Swati Kalgaonkar and by his in-laws Shashi Kant Kalgaonkar and Manju Kalgaonkar." http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

The CPIO replied to the appellant, in seriatim, on the basis of report/comments/ documents obtained from SHO/Prashatn Vihar through ACP as follows: "(1) As per the report of SHO/Prashant Vihar, Delhi no complaint for dated 8.2.2005, 5.9.2005, 16.12.2005, 16.6.2008, 6.2.2011, 9.5.2011, 1.6.2011 and 2.6.2011 filed by Shri S.K. Kalgaonkar against him and his family members. There were two complaints dated 9.9.2005 and 8.2.2011 filed by Shri Shashi Kant Kalgaonkar against him and his family members received at PS Prashant Vihar, Delhi; (2 and 4) In this regard, the appellant can collect photocopy of requisite information/documents i.e. photo copy of complaint dated 8.2.2011 and its enquiry report as received from SHO through ACP on any working day after paying a sum of Rs. 22 consisting of 11 pages. Besides, as per the report of SHO record related to complaint dated 9.9.2005 was not available at PS Prashant Vihar and no statement of Smt. Swati Kalgaonkar, Shashi Kant and Manju Kalgaonkar was recorded during enquiry; and (3) As per report of SHO the record related to complaint dated 9.9.2005 was not available at PS Prashant Vihar. No document was attached with complaint dated 8.2.2011."

3. Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 28.5.2012 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order No. 384/Appeal/RTI/Outer District dated 23.6.2012 recorded that the contentions put forth by the appellant and report of the PIO/Outer District has been considered. The appellant has contended in his appeal that he is not satisfied by the reply received. He further requested to instruct the PIO to provide him the record related to complaint dated 9.9.2005 i.e. copy of police complaint, inquiry report, statements etc. and statements of Smt. Swati Kalgaonkar, Shashikant Kalgaonkar and Manju Kalgaonkar recorded during the enquiry of complaint dated 8.2.2011. The FAA remitted back the matter to the CPIO with the directions to provide complete and specific point-wise information as sought by the appellant vide his appeal, permissible under the ARI Act within seven days.

4. In compliance with the directions of the FAA, the CPIO vide letter No. 3521A/RTI Cell/Outer District dated 29.6.2012 informed the appellant as follows: "(1) As per record of PS Prashant Vihar record related to complaint dated 9.9.2005 i.e. copy of police complaint, enquiry report, statement were with ASI Vinod Kumar then posted at PS Prashant Vihar. He is reported to be retired from Delhi Police; (2) May please refer earlier reply in which it is mentioned that information regarding non-availability of statement of Smt. Shashikant, Swati and Manju was about complaint dated 8.2.2011 and not about complaint dated 9.9.2005; and (3) In complaint dated 8.2.2011 no statement of Smt. Shashikant, Swati and Manju were recorded. Hence the statements were not available".

5. In his second appeal filed before the Commission, the appellant states that the CPIO has explained that records related to complaint dated 9.9.2005 were with ASI Vinod Kumar and he is reported to have retired. He submits that police complaint records are Government property. It must be available within the police station. No person/officer can take/dispose of those records when he retires from service as claimed. Records must be handed over to the concerned staff/ SHO at the time of retirement. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

6. During the hearing the respondent CPIO states that in this regard as per fresh report/comments of SHO/Prashant Vihar the complaint dated 9.9.2005 was received at PS Prashant Vihar and marked to then IO ASI Vinod Kumar who has retired from Delhi Police in the year 2005.

7. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the view that there is merit in the contention put forth by the appellant that the relevant records must be available at PS Prashant Vihar, which is a Government property and the retiring police official must handover the relevant records to the SHO/concerned staff. The Commission hereby directs the CPIO to locate the concerned file and provide copy of complaint dated 9.9.2005 along with relevant documents to the appellant. In case this complaint is not traceable, the CPIO is directed to provide specific reply stating action, if any, taken by the Police and the reasons thereof. The CPIO will comply with the directions of the Commission within three weeks of receipt of this order.

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

(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar

Address of the parties:

Shri Rahul Kumar Goyal, 67C, Ground Floor, Parsvnath Panchvati, Taj Nagri, Phase-II, Agra-282001 (UP).

The Addl. DCP/CPIO, Delhi Police, Outer District, Pushpanjali, Road No. 43, Delhi-110034.

The DCP/FAA, Delhi Police, Outer District, Pushpanjali, Road No. 43, Delhi-110034.

*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

Two Housewives @ UAE trap Indian in sex blackmail plot. Collected ~ 1 Crore !!

"… blackmailed a man who had sex with one of them, asking him to pay Dh1 million, the Dubai Criminal Court heard. …"

Two Housewives @ UAE trap Indian in sex blackmail plot. Collected ~ 1 Crore !!

One accused of sleeping with him and then asking for money

By Eman Al Baik
Published Monday, February 09, 2015

Two housewives allegedly blackmailed a man who had sex with one of them, asking him to pay Dh1 million, the Dubai Criminal Court heard.

A couple of days after arriving in the country, KA, 44, an Indian, accompanied his friend to a hotel in Ajman.

“My friend asked me to accompany him to a hotel where he would meet his girlfriend.

“As we reach there I told him I will wait in the car, but he insisted I should go in.

We met HB. My friend left the room and I stayed with the woman who started seducing me and playing porn films.

She started groping me and then I had sex with her. I washed in the bathroom and as I got out she was crying and weeping over the phone, claiming that she is talking to CID officers and asked me to sort the matter with them.”

“I was asked to pay Dh1m not to report the incident. I accepted to pay Dh500,000 and I issued a cheque in the name of the woman HB,” the victim said in his testimony.

HB collected the amount from the bank and did not stop at this point but continued blackmailing the victim together with a 48-year-old woman, SS.

“I paid HS an additional Dh50,000 and I paid Dh48,000, for treatment cost of the elder woman SS,” the victim told police.

Investigation revealed the two women to be housewives, who did not stop blackmailing the victim until he reported the incident to the police.

Police arrested the two women who stay in Shajrah.

The younger woman admitted to knowing the victim and his friend.

She claimed that she met them in Ajman, but denied having sex with any of them.

The court will give its verdict in March 3.

source / courtesy : Emirates 24 / 7 website
http://www.emirates247 . com/news/emirat /housew ives-trap-man-in-ajma n-sex-and-blackmail-

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

Sampl CrPC91 petition. Delete d un-necessary. Share thoughts & success stories on the blog

This is a sample CrPC 91 petition shared by some husbands. Please consider this as work in progress and contribute to improve this. I am particularly NOT happy with para # 3 to # 5. I feel we should add more strength to the "need for " seeking these documents; all inputs / comments / critique is gratefully acknowledged

I. Keep the list of what is required to a reasonable level . DO NOT ask for 20 different things and do NOT ask things NOT connected directly to the case

II. Courts may NOT accept Sec 91 CrPC petition before filing of charges. there are case laws to that effect. So IF you are making this BEFORE filing of charges, please make it very clear to the court that the proof is required because of such and such and such fact / proof that will change the very nature of the charge [ example, A says B committed a murder at chennai
on 01 Jan 2014; However B was at a particular office / bank at Mumbai ;
so seeking attendance records or CCTV records will change the entire
case]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE ______ JM/ JMFC, _______ (city )

Misc. Cri. A. No. _____ # / __ year F.F.

APPLICANT Mrs. ______________ (wife)

v /s

NON APPLICANT Mr. ______________ (husband)

APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION TO APPLICANTS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS UNDER SECTION 91 OF CRPC

The above named Non Applicant No. 1, most humbly submits as follows :

1. That, the above mentioned application, is fixed for hearing today.

2. The Petitioner / Applicant has filed an application under Section _____________ of _________ Act _________(this may be 498a / D.V / CrPC 125 / etc) by making false allegations.

Alternative 1