के(cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सचू ना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गगं नाथ माग,(cid:6981) मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली, New Delhi – 110067 ि(cid:7367)तीय अपील स(cid:6990)ं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/626608 Ashok Khemka … ि(cid:7367)तीय अपील कता(cid:6981)/Appellant VERSUS/बनाम PIO, Dy. Supdt. Of Police, …(cid:7079)ितवादीगण/Respondent Chandigarh Date of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date of Decision : 16.02.2026 Chief Information Commissioner : Raj Kumar Goyal Relevant dates:

RTI application filed on : 22.04.2024 PIO replied on : 18.05.2024 First Appeal filed on : 20.05.2024 First Appellate Order on : 18.06.2024 2ndAppeal/complaint : 25.06.2024 received on Information sought and background of the case:

1. The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 22.04.2024 before the PIO, UT Chandigarh- Police, seeking the following information:

“1. Name and address of the man who had booked the offending letter in the Sector

17 GPO Chandigarh and whose CCTV photo was enclosed with the complaint.

2. All notings, documents, correspondences and case diary entries generated during the investigation of the FIR.

3. Follow-up action on my letter no. ACS/P&S/2024/46 dated 11.03.2024 to Ms.

Kanwardeep Kaur, SSP, UT Chandigarh.”

[reproduced verbatim]

2. The CPIO, Central Sub Division, Dy. Supdt. Of Police, Chandigarh sent an online response dated 18.05.2024 based on information received from SHO/PS-3, Chandigarh, stating as under:

“1. Case FIR No.76 dated 23.07.2022 U/s 419, 407, 120B IPC, PS-03, Chandigarh is under Investigation and at this stage, the requisite information cannot be supplied to the applicant u/s 8(1) (h) of RTI Act 2005.

2. Case FIR No.76 dated 23.07.2022 U/s 419, 407, 120B IPC, PS-03, Chandigarh is under investigation and at this stage, the requisite information cannot be supplied to the applicant u/s 8(1) (h) of RTI Act 2005.

3. In this connection, a complaint no. ICMS/2024/006735 dated 11.03.2024 has been registered and the copy of said letter has been attached with case file (FIR No.76)..”

[reproduced verbatim]

3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.05.2024 before the UT Chandigarh- - Police on the ground that the CPIO has not explained as to how the information sought would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. He has accordingly claimed that reliance placed by the PIO on clause (h) of section 8 (1) is not sustainable referring to four landmark decisions, viz. i) UOI vs. Manjit Singh Bali, 2018 SCC Online Del 10394; ii) Director of Income Tax(Investigation) and Ors. Vs. Bhagat Singh & Ors. MANU/DE/9178/2007; iii) Bhagat Singh vs. CIC & Ors. (2008) 100DRJ 63 and iv) B S Mathur vs. PIO of Delhi High Court (2011)125 DRJ 508. The FAA/SSP, Chandigarh disposed of the First Appeal vide order dated 18.06.2024 upholding the PIO’s reply stating that the FIR & complaint are still under enquiry/investigation.

4. Dissatisfied with the FAA’s order, the aggrieved Appellant filed the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in course of Hearing:

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

Appellant: Present through video conference.

Respondent: SI Lakhwinder Singh was present through video conference.

6. The Respondent placed reliance on the written submission/counter statement dated 21.01.2026 sent by the CPIO-cum-Dy. Supdt. Of Police, Central Division, Chandigarh wherein apart from reiterating the above facts, the CPIO has further stated as under:

“Now, regarding 2nd appeal the comment has also been from SHO/PS-03, Chandigarh. As per report, it is respectfully submitted that FIR No.76 dated 23.07.2022 under Sections 419,507,120-B IPC, Police Station Sector-3 Chandigarh, was registered after a detailed enquiry and after obtaining legal opinion from DDA (Legal) on the complaint of Sh. Ashok Khemka, IAS, Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana Science & Technology and Fisheries Department Room No. 403, New Haryana Secretariat, Sec