Full Judgment Text
2021:DHC:2512
$~20 to 23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision: 17 August, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & CM APPL. 16337/2021
AMIT MEHARIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abinash Aggarwal, Advocate
versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Tara Narula with Ms. Aparajita
Sinha, Advs. for R-1 to 3.
21 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 2246/2021 & CM APPL. 16335/2021
AMIT MEHARIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abinash Aggarwal, Advocate
versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Tara Narula with Ms. Aparajita
Sinha, Advs. for R-1 to 3.
22 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 2247/2021 & CM APPL. 16333/2021
AMIT MEHARIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abinash Aggarwal, Advocate
versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Tara Narula with Ms. Aparajita
Sinha, Advs. for R-1 to 3.
23 AND
+ W.P.(C) 2249/2021 & CM APPL. 16334/2021
AMIT MEHARIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abinash Aggarwal, Advocate
versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Tara Narula with Ms. Aparajita
Sinha, Advs. for R-1 to 3.
W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & other connected matters Page 1 of 15
2021:DHC:2512
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The present four petitions have been filed by the Petitioner
th
challenging the impugned order dated 5 January, 2021 passed in Second
Appeal by the Central Information Commission ( hereinafter ‘CIC’ ) in four
separate cases arising out of four applications under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 ( hereinafter “RTI Act, 2005” ). The said RTI applications dated
th
28 June, 2018 were filed by the Petitioner herein, seeking information
relating to the complaints lodged by his estranged wife, Ms. Abhilasha
Malhotra, impleaded as Respondent No.4 herein, against her previous two
husbands and their family members.
3. The Petitioner was married to Respondent No.4 Ms. Abhilasha
th
Malhotra on 10 December, 2017. Various disputes arose between the
parties in their matrimonial life leading to various complaints and
proceedings. The following proceedings are stated to be pending between
the Petitioner and Respondent No.4.
i) A matrimonial suit being Mat. Suit. No. 05/2019 (formerly
numbered as Mat. Suit. No. 1759/2018) was filed by the Petitioner
before the District Judge, Alipore, Kolkata seeking a decree of nullity
of marriage on the ground that the marriage between the Petitioner
and Respondent No.4 was voidable as being violative of Section
25(iii) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 ( hereinafter “SMA, 1954” )
as the Petitioner’s consent to the marriage was obtained by fraud.
ii) A criminal complaint filed by Respondent No.4 against the
W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & other connected matters Page 2 of 15
2021:DHC:2512
Petitioner being FIR No.78/2018 under Section 498A/406/377/34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Mahila Court,
Dwarka, Delhi, where the Charge Sheet has been filed against the
Petitioner and his family members.
th
iii) A General Diary entry dated 09 March 2018 lodged by the
father of the Petitioner at the Alipore Police Station, Kolkata in
respect of the matrimonial disputes between the Petitioner and
Respondent No.4.
4. The present petitions arise out of the RTI query which was filed by
the Petitioner under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
I. The particulars of the information sought by the Petitioner under the
first RTI application are set out hereunder:
“(b) Particulars of information required
(i) Details of information required :
a. Whether any complaint was lodged by
Abhilasha Malhotra, resident of 361,
Mandakini Enclave, Alaknanda, New Delhi
110019. P. S. Chittaranjan Park under
Section 154 Cr. P.C and Section 498A/
406/377/34 Indian Penal Code?
b. Steps undertaken pursuant to the
complaint
c. Status of the complaint
d. Copy of the investigation report
(ii) Period for which information asked:
January, 2013 to December, 2015 (both
months inclusive)
(iii) Other details”
W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & other connected matters Page 3 of 15
2021:DHC:2512
II. The particulars of the information sought by the Petitioner under the
second RTI application are set out hereunder:
“(b) Particulars of information required
(i) Details of information required: Whether any
complaint has been lodged before CAW, Delhi
by Abhilasha Malhotra, resident of 361,
Mandakini Enclave, Alaknanda, New Delhi
110019. P. S. Chittaranjan Park.
Kindly provide following information
a. Copy of the complaint lodged by Abhilasha
Malhotra.
b. Copy of the office order for the enquiry in this
regard.
c. Name of the members of the enquiry
committee.
d. Date of Enquiry.
e. Copy of the enquiry report.
f. Final decision of the competent authority
(ii) Period for which information asked: January,
2013 to December, 2015 (both months
inclusive).
(iii) Other details”
III. The particulars of the information sought by the Petitioner under the
third RTI application are set out hereunder:
“(b) Particulars of information required
(i) Details of information required: Please refer
th
to complaint lodged on 04 January, 2016 by
Abhilasha Malhotra (Wife) resident of 361,
Mandakini Enclave, Alaknanda, New Delhi
110019 P.S. Chittaranjan Park against
Pranav Kumar (Husband), resident of 309,
W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & other connected matters Page 4 of 15
2021:DHC:2512
Prime Lavender Apartment, Panathur Road,
Kadubeesanahalli, Hali Police Station,
Bangalore 560087 AND Flat No.101, Om Sai
th
Diamond, 6 ACRS, Rajshree L/O,
Munnekolala, Marathahalli, Bangalore-
560037 before CAW, Delhi.
Kindly provide following information
a. Copy of the complaint lodged by Abhilasha
Malhotra
b. Copy of the office order for the enquiry in
this regard
c. Name of the members of the enquiry
committee,
d. Date of Enquiry.
e. Copy of the enquiry report.
f. Final decision of the competent authority
(ii) Period for which information asked: January,
2016 till date
(iii) Other details”
IV. The particulars of the information sought by the Petitioner under the
fourth RTI application are set out hereunder:
“(b) Particulars of information required
(i) Details of information required:
th
(a) A copy of the complaint lodged on 18
May, 2016 by Abhilasha Malhotra (Wife) -
361, Mandakini Enclave, Alaknanda, New
Delhi 110019. P.S. Chittaranjan Park against
Pranav Kumar (Husband) - 309, Prime
Lavender Apartment, Panathur Road,
Kadubeesanahalli, Hali Police Station,
Bangalore 560087 AND Flat No.101, Om Sai
th
Diamond, 6 ACRS, Rajshree L/O,
W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & other connected matters Page 5 of 15
2021:DHC:2512
Munnekolala, Marathahalli, Bangalore-
560037 before CAW, Delhi under Section
154 Cr.PC and Section 498A/406/377/34
Indian Penal Code being FIR No. 81/2016.
b. Steps undertaken pursuant to the
complaint.
c. Status of the complaint.
d. Copy of the investigation report.
(ii) Period for which information asked: May,
2016 till date.
(iii) Other details.”
5. The CPIO, Special Police Unit for Women and Children ( hereinafter
th
“SPUWAC” ), Nanakpura, New Delhi, by its Reply dated 12 July 2018
rejected the request on the ground that the disclosure of the said information
would be barred under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The relevant
extract from the CPIO’s Reply is set out below:
Copy of requisite documents can’t be provided as per section 8(1) (j) of
RTI Act, 2005 as disclosure of same would cause unwarranted invasion
of the privacy of the individual and there is no larger public interest in
disclosing the information.
6. The Petitioner filed the First Appeal under the RTI Act, 2005 before
the Respondent No.3/First Appellate Authority, SPUWAC which, vide order
th
dated 12 September 2018, again rejected the said request with the
following findings:
“I have carefully considered the submission of the
appellant made in his appeal dated 08.08.2018
and PIO’s order dated 12.07.2018.
W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & other connected matters Page 6 of 15
2021:DHC:2512
I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere
with the reply given by the PIO/SPUWAC as
PIO/SPUWAC has provided the correct
information on Point raised in the RTI application
as per available record in SPUWAC, within the
stipulated period of RTI Act-2005. It is submitted
that appellant is third party and information
sought by appellant can’t be provided in view of
Sec. 8(1) (j) of RTI Act as disclosure of same
would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy
of the individual and there is no larger public
interest in disclosing the information. Moreover,
reply given by the PIO/SPUWAC was complete
and sufficient.
The appeal is hereby disposed off…”
7. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a Second Appeal before the CIC which
th
was rejected by the impugned order dated 5 January 2021. During the
proceedings before the First Appellate Authority, a short status report was
also filed by the Delhi Police wherein the details of the first, second and
third complaints of the Respondent No.4 filed against both her ex-husbands
and the present husband i.e., the Petitioner, were revealed before the
th
Appellate Authority. In the impugned order, which was passed on 5
January, 2021, the Second Appellate Authority/CIC upheld that the
information sought was covered under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
However, it did direct the Respondent therein to provide the said status
report to the Petitioner. The operative portion of the impugned order is set
out below:
“Upon hearing the averments of both parties and
after perusal of the detailed submissions filed by the
Appellant, the commission finds no infirmity with the
W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & other connected matters Page 7 of 15
2021:DHC:2512
view of the Respondent in denial of information
invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. During the
course of hearing, the Appellant raised concerns
that his estranged wife may file documents to his
disadvantage and hence he wanted to prepare his
defence through the documents sought in RTI
applications. He is reminded that once the matter is
before the Trial Court, he shall get ample
opportunity to seek from the court, all necessary
documents used against him, to defend his case.
Under the circumstances, the Commission hereby
directs the Respondent to provide a comprehensive
status report about the complaints filed by Smt.
Abhilasha Malhotra before the Delhi Police, upon
submitting the matter before the concerned Court.
The Respondent shall provide this status report to
the Appellant within three weeks of receipt of this
order and the Respondent shall submit a compliance
report in this regard before the Commission by
31.01.2021. It is made clear that non-adherence of
these directions shall attract penal action as per
law.
The above four appeals are on a common subject
matter and hence are decided by a common order.”
8. The submission on behalf of the Petitioner in this case is that the
Respondent No.4 has already undergone two marriages and the third
marriage was with the Petitioner. According to Mr. Datta, learned senior
counsel for Petitioner, the Respondent No.4 has indulged in fraud against the
Petitioner inasmuch as almost identical allegations have been levelled by
Respondent No.4 against all three husbands. Thus, in order to establish his
case as regards the voidability of the marriage on the ground of fraud under
Section 25(iii) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the details of the previous
two marriages, the complaints lodged thereunder, the FIR, if any, and the
W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & other connected matters Page 8 of 15
2021:DHC:2512
settlements entered into therein would be extremely relevant. He further
submits that a perusal of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 would show
that if the information has no relation to any public activity or it is necessary
to disclose it in the larger public interest, the said information should be
disclosed.
9. Mr. Datta, ld. Senior Counsel further submits that there would be no
invasion of privacy inasmuch as the wife is well-aware of all the allegations
she had made, and therefore, the fact that the said allegations would come
out in public domain, or would be revealed to the Petitioner for use in other
proceedings, would not be violative of her privacy. Finally, he submits that
the stand of the Respondent that FIRs are not in public domain is belied by
the fact that the FIR No. 78/2018 which is filed by the Respondent No.4
against the Petitioner himself, is easily downloadable from the Delhi Police
website, whereas the other FIRs are not being revealed to him. This,
according to Mr. Datta, clearly shows that the exception of the privacy
would not apply inasmuch as the allegations are very similar to each other.
He also relies upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in CIC vs. High
Court of Gujarat [(2020) 4 SCC 702] to argue that the second FIR being
FIR No. 81/2016 against the second husband and his family members was
the subject matter of a quashing petition before the Delhi High Court, and
thus, it is a part of the judicial records. Therefore, he submits that the
Petitioner should be permitted to avail of the same.
10. On the other hand, Ms. Tara Narula, ld. counsel appearing for the
Respondent/GNCTD, submits that the information which is sought is
sensitive information as the offences which are alleged against the husbands
are both under Section 498A and Section 377 of IPC, which are considered
W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & other connected matters Page 9 of 15
2021:DHC:2512
as sensitive information and are also related to alleged sexual offences.
Thus, these FIRs ought not to be published in public domain. She submits
that if the FIR against the Petitioner is in the public domain, the same could
only be an inadvertent error. She further submits that the status report has
already been filed in a sealed cover before the Court which would reveal that
the first complaint filed against the first husband has already been settled,
and in fact, there was no FIR which was registered pursuant to the said
complaint. Insofar as the second complaint against the second husband is
concerned, the same was registered as FIR No. 81/2016 . However, the same
was also settled in the mediation proceedings and the said FIR was also
th
quashed by the Delhi High Court, vide Order dated 24 February 2020 in
Crl. M.C. No.3106/2018.
11. Ms. Tara Narula, ld. Counsel submits that the events which transpired
during the mediation proceedings and the mediator’s reports, especially in
matrimonial proceedings, are all confidential in nature and cannot be
disclosed to any third party. Finally, she submits that under Section 91 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the criminal case pending
before the Mahila Court, Dwarka, Delhi, as also in the civil suit which is
stated to have been filed by the Petitioner, the Petitioner has remedies before
the respective fora to seek summoning of the relevant records from the Delhi
Police, and the RTI route is not the correct route which should be adopted by
the Petitioner. Specific reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Registrar, Supreme Court v. R.S. Misra [2017 SCC OnLine Del
11811] where the Supreme Court has clearly observed that if the documents
can be obtained in other proceedings, and the intention is not to achieve
transparency, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be invoked.
W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & other connected matters Page 10 of 15
2021:DHC:2512
| 12. Ms. Narula, ld. Counsel for Respondent also submits that the | ||
|---|---|---|
| Petitioner has already availed of another writ petition being W.P. Crl. | ||
| 1046/2021 in respect of the investigation and the charge sheet which has | ||
| now been sought under the RTI application. The said writ was disposed of | ||
| by directing the Petitioner to raise all issues before the Trial Court. The | ||
| relevant portion of the said order dated 02nd June 2021 is set out below: | ||
| “4. Though, the complainant is not a party in the | ||
| present writ petition, however, I hereby dispose of | ||
| the present petition by giving liberty to the | ||
| petitioner to raise all issues before the Trial Court | ||
| and take steps as per law.” | ||
| 13. The present case is a peculiar case where the Petitioner is the third | ||
| husband of the Respondent No.4. A civil suit being Mat. Suit No. 05 of | ||
| 2019 titled Amit Meharia v. Abhilasha Malhotra & Ors., which was filed | ||
| by the Petitioner under the provisions of Section 25(iii) of the SMA, 1954 is | ||
| stated to have been dismissed by the Alipore Court vide Judgment dated 10th | ||
| December, 2020, and according to Mr. Datta, ld. Counsel, one of the reasons | ||
| for the rejection was the non-availability of the information and particulars | ||
| relating to the fraud. An appeal against the said suit is stated to be pending | ||
| before the Calcutta High Court being FAT No. 330 of 2020 titled Amit | ||
| Meharia v. Abhilasha Malhotra & Ors. Insofar as the criminal complaint | ||
| filed by Respondent No.4 is concerned, the same is also pending trial before | ||
| the Mahila Court, Dwarka, Delhi. It is in these proceedings that the | ||
| Petitioner claims to be requiring the information sought. | ||
| 14. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act reads as under:- | ||
| “(j) information which relates to personal | ||
| information the disclosure of which has no | ||
| relationship to any public activity or interest, or |
W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & other connected matters Page 11 of 15
2021:DHC:2512
| which would cause unwarranted invasion of the<br>privacy of the individual unless the Central Public<br>Information Officer or the State Public<br>Information Officer or the appellate authority, as<br>the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public<br>interest justifies the disclosure of such<br>information: Provided that the information, which<br>cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State<br>Legislature shall not be denied to any person.” | which would cause unwarranted invasion of the | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| privacy of the individual unless the Central Public | ||||
| Information Officer or the State Public | ||||
| Information Officer or the appellate authority, as | ||||
| the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public | ||||
| interest justifies the disclosure of such | ||||
| information: Provided that the information, which | ||||
| cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State | ||||
| Legislature shall not be denied to any person.” | ||||
| 15. The Court has perused the status report, the complaints and other | ||||
| annexures filed along with the status report which shows that the first | ||||
| complaint was filed by Respondent No. 4 against her first husband which | ||||
| was amicably resolved by the parties, second complaint lodged against the | ||||
| second husband which was converted into FIR No. 81/2016 and Charge | ||||
| Sheet dated 24th December 2018 and thereafter quashed by the Delhi High | ||||
| Court vide Order dated 24th February 2020 in Crl. M.C. No.3106/2018, and | ||||
| finally, a third complaint against the present Petitioner which was converted | ||||
| into FIR No. 78/2018 and Charge Sheet dated 08th January 2021. | ||||
| 16. A perusal of all these FIRs and complaints therein would show that | ||||
| allegations have been made by the Respondent No. 4 against both her ex- | ||||
| husbands as also the in-laws etc. Thus, the privacy which is to be considered | ||||
| in this case is not just the privacy of Respondent No.4 alone, but in fact, that | ||||
| of the said husbands against whom complaints were filed as well as the in- | ||||
| laws etc. The personal information in this case does not relate only to the | ||||
| Petitioner or Respondent No.4 but also to those other persons who were the | ||||
| subject matter of the said complaints and FIR. Thus, the exception under | ||||
| Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 would clearly apply in the present case. | ||||
| 17. Insofar as the two pending proceedings between the Petitioner and |
W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & other connected matters Page 12 of 15
2021:DHC:2512
| Respondent no.4 and the requirement of the information for the proper | |
|---|---|
| adjudication of the said proceedings are concerned, the Petitioner has | |
| already been given two status reports; | |
| • The first status report was given to the Petitioner during the RTI | |
| proceedings; | |
| • The second status report was filed before this Court openly; | |
| 18. The first and the second report above, clearly set out the basic facts | |
| relating to the two earlier marriages. The same are not repeated herein for | |
| the sake of protecting the privacy of all the parties involved. A third status | |
| report was filed in a sealed cover, along with several documents, before this | |
| Court. Such documents which are referred to therein and needed, can be | |
| summoned or sought, before the courts where the proceedings are pending. | |
| The Petitioner has his own remedies which he can avail, in accordance with | |
| law, both before the Calcutta High Court, for discovery/interrogatories etc. | |
| Even in the criminal case, which is pending before the Mahila Court, | |
| Dwarka, Delhi, there are remedies under Section 91 or Section 173 of the | |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In this case, the Investigating Officer can | |
| also produce the documents, produced before this Court in a sealed cover, as | |
| the same may be relevant. The court also has the power to summon these | |
| documents from the police authorities. | |
| 19. The Supreme Court has clearly observed in Registrar, Supreme Court | |
| v. R.S. Misra [2017 SCC OnLine Del 11811] that the provisions of the RTI | |
| Act are for achieving transparency and not for making available information | |
| to be used in other proceedings, especially if there are other remedies | |
| available to the persons who seek the information, under another statute. The |
W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & other connected matters Page 13 of 15
2021:DHC:2512
relevant extract reads as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
53. The preamble shows that the RTI Act has been
enacted only to make accessible to the citizens the
information with the public authorities which
hitherto was not available. Neither the Preamble
of the RTI Act nor does any other provision of the
Act disclose the purport of the RTI Act to provide
additional mode for accessing information with the
public authorities which has already formulated
rules and schemes for making the said information
available. Certainly if the said rules, regulations
and schemes do not provide for accessing
information which has been made accessible under
the RTI Act, resort can be had to the provision of
the RTI Act but not to duplicate or to multiply the
modes of accessing information.
| 54. This Court is further of the opinion that if any | ||
|---|---|---|
| information can be accessed through the | ||
| mechanism provided under another statute, then | ||
| the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to | ||
| as there is absence of the very basis for invoking | ||
| the provisions of RTI Act, namely, lack of | ||
| transparency. In other words, the provisions of | ||
| RTI Act are not to be resorted to if the same are | ||
| not actuated to achieve transparency.” | ||
| 20. Thus, the Petitioner in the present case is already in possession of the | ||
| status report which was directed to be provided to the Petitioner by the | ||
| Second Appellate Authority/CIC. The said status report is on record and | ||
| reveals the details of all the earlier proceedings without going into the | ||
| particulars and allegations which were made against the said third parties. | ||
| This status report, combined with the remedies which are available to the | ||
| Petitioner, clearly show that the Petitioner is not remediless in respect of the |
W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & other connected matters Page 14 of 15
2021:DHC:2512
information which is sought. The Petitioner can clearly avail of his remedies
in accordance with law, both before the Calcutta High Court, as also before
the Mahila Court, Dwarka, under Section 91 and Section 173 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
21. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does
not warrant any interference inasmuch as the information sought is governed
by Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, the fact that these
petitions have been rejected would not in any manner adversely affect the
Petitioner’s rights to seek his remedies in accordance with law, both before
the Calcutta High Court and before the Mahila Court, Dwarka, Delhi where
the criminal complaint filed by Respondent No.4 against the Petitioner, is
pending.
22. The Petitioner is permitted to place the open status reports, which
have been provided by the Delhi Police, before the said appropriate fora and
seek summoning of the remaining relevant records which shall then be
considered by the said courts in accordance with law. The status report filed
before this Court, in a sealed cover along with annexures, is directed to be
returned to the Counsel for the Delhi Police, by the Court Master. The same
shall not constitute a part of the judicial record.
23. Needless to add, the observations in this order would not affect any of
the said remedies available to the Petitioner before the respective fora.
24. With these observations, the present petition, with all pending
applications, is disposed of with no orders as to costs.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
AUGUST 17, 2021/ mw/mr/AD
rd
(corrected & printed 23 August 2021)
W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & other connected matters Page 15 of 15