Daily Archives: March 14, 2015

Husband to get wife’s police complaint copy. VERY clear CIC decision

GIST : Wife files complaints against husband at Delhi CAW cell. Husband seek’s copy of complaint. Initially refused by police. CIC says “….Such documents can hardly be treated as personal information supplied by third party. The Commission therefore directs the Respondent CPIO to provide a copy of the complaint filed by his wife to the appellant, free of cost, within 7 days of receipt of this order….”

http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Central Information Commission

Room No. 305, 2 nd Floor, ‘B’ Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,

Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066

Web: www.cic.gov.in

Tel No: 26167931

Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/000350

Name of Appellant : Sh. Ritesh Suri

(The Appellant was present)

Name of Respondent : Addl. Commissioner of Police,

Special Police Unit for Women and

Children, New Delhi.

Represented by:

Shri O.P. Arora, ACP and Shri S.S. Malhan, Inspector.

The matter was heard on : 17.8.2011

ORDER

Sh. Ritesh Suri, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated 13.12.2010 requested the respondent CPIO for a copy of the complaint registered by his wife Smt. Lekha Chhabra against him in the Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi. The information requested was denied to the appellant by the CPIO u/s 8(1)(e) and also u/s 11 of the RTI Act on the grounds that complainant has not given her consent to give a copy of the complaint to the Appellant. Aggrieved with the reply the appellant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA, vide its order dated 19.1.2011 upheld the decision of the PIO.

The Commission in a number of its decisions has held that the person complained against has right to know the nature of complaint made against him, particularly when the respondent has taken action on the complaint filed with them. The Complainant too has filed the complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell with the expectation that they would take necessary action, as per law, on her complaint. Such documents can hardly be treated as personal information supplied by third party. The Commission therefore directs the Respondent CPIO to provide a copy of the complaint filed by his wife to the appellant, free of cost, within 7 days of receipt of this order.

With these directions the matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.

Sd/- (Sushma Singh)

Information Commissioner

17.08.2011

Authenticated true copy

(K.K. Sharma )

OSD & Dy. Registrar

Copy to:

1. Shri Ritest Suri,

C-3701, Ground Floor,

Sushant Lok Phase-1,

Gurgaon, Haryana.

2. The P.I.O.

Addl. Commissioner of Police,

Special Police Unit for Women and Children,

Nanakpura, New Delhi.

3. The First Appellate Authority,

Dy. Commissioner of Police,

Special Police Unit for Women and Children,

Nanakpura, New Delhi.

http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

PDF file http://1drv.ms/1x4Yl00

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

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

Husband gets WIFE’s complaint copy thru RTI. CIC decision!

Husband gets WIFE’s complaint copy thru RTI. CIC decision!

Gist: Wife files multiple police complaints against the husband. She has also filed maintenance cases. Husband approaches police for copy of wife’s complaint to defend his maintenance case. Police refuses the same. Husband files RTI which is initially rejected under under the provisions of Sec 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act as disclosure of the same may endanger the life or physical safety of the appellant’s wife !!. CIC refuses to accept the police version and orders the police to give husband a copy of wife’s complaint.

http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

ROOM NO. 329, SECOND FLOOR, C-WING

August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,

New Delhi-110066

Tel. No. 91-11-26717356

F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/000668-YA

Date of Hearing                                                : 06.08.2014

Date of Decision                                               : 06.08.2014

Appellant :                                                         Shri V. Ayyappan,

                                                                                Bangalore

Respondent                                                       : Shri T.Bairavaswamy,

                                                                                SP/PIO UT of Pondicherry,

                                                                                Puducherry

Information Commissioner                         : Shri Yashovardhan Azad

Relevant fact emerging from appeal:

RTI Application filed on                                 : 25.09.2012

PIO replied on                                                   : 24.10.2012

First Appeal filed on                                        : 02.11.2012

First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on : 13.12.2012

Second Appeal received on                         : 13.02.2013

 

Information sought:

 

Appellant sought a copy of the complaint, filed against him by his wife in the Police station at Puducherry with the copy of enquiry report and copies of the statements given by the appellant and Smt. S.P. Nivedha.

Relevant facts emerging during hearing:

Both the parties are present. Appellant filed an RTI application on 25.09.2012 seeking copy of the complaint, filed against him by his wife in the Police station at Puducherry with the copy of enquiry report and copies of the statements given by the appellant and Smt. S.P. Nivedha. PIO on 24.10.2012 refused to give information stating therein that the information could not be provided under the provisions of Sec 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act as disclosure of the same may endanger the life or physical safety of the appellant’s wife who resides in Puducherry. The First Appellate Authority vide his order dated 13.12.2012 directed the PIO to furnish a copy of the statement given by the appellant, if recorded, unless the statement was required for any criminal case. Appellant stated that he wanted copies of statement by his wife and the enquiry report in connection with the maintenance case going on in a civil court. He also stated that his wife had filed another complaint against him in Dindigul (Tamil Nadu), copy of which was made available to him through his RTI application.

Respondent stated that on 11.07.2012 a complaint was lodged by the appellant’s wife against the appellant and his parents regarding dowry harassment, safety and security. The appellant was called for inquiry during which both the parties agreed on 28.07.2012 through signed statements, to settle the issue by approaching the family court. Subsequently, the appellant asked for copy of wife’s complaint and the inquiry report which was denied to him by invoking exemption under section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

It is clear from perusal of records and the statements by the appellant and the respondent during the hearing that the appellant and his wife are engaged in a bitter marital dispute and maintenance case in this regard is ongoing in a civil court. Appellant’s wife filed complaints against the appellant in not one but two police stations. The Puducherry police has refused to give the copy of a complaint by the appellants wife and inquiry report, on grounds of physical safety, by invoking exemption under section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act. The respondent was not able to clarify as to how the physical danger to the wife’s safety is enhanced by the appellant knowing the contents of her complaint, since the substance of her charges is already known through the contents of the complaint filed in another police station made available to him through another RTI Application. Since the inquiry by Puducherry Police is over and the Complainant is signatory to the letter by the both parties for approaching the family court, due to which inquiry was closed- clearly strengthens his claim to get a copy of the documents. The inquiry is also not required in other cases.

The appellant has stated that he needs the documents for his defence/strengthening his case in the maintenance suit filed in the civil court. Besides, the appellant has not asked for any personal details of his wife but only the contents of documents relating to the charges against him.

In view of above, the Commission does not accept the grounds taken by the respondents for denial of information under Section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act. The Commission directs the respondents to provide the information sought in the RTI application to appellant, within two weeks of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

(Yashovardhan Azad)

Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.

 

(Tarun Kumar)

Joint Secretary & Additional Registrar

 

PDF File : http://1drv.ms/1EeNDBd