COMPLAINT TO INFORMATION COMMISSION AGAINST PIO FOR DEEMED REFUSAL

BEFORE THE HON'BLE INFORMATION COMISSION:CITY

Between:


NAME
Address:

                                                                              ……Complaint


-A N D-                                                                
                  
SPIO
Address:                                                                  ....Respondent


                      COMPLAINT FILED U/S 18(1)(B) & (C) OF RTI ACT – 2005


I.   INDEX of DOCUMENTS(ENCLOSED)
     1). My RTI Application dated ??/??/?? u/s 6                    .......Exhibit A
     2). Speed/Regd  post receipt                                            .......Exhibit B



II.   FACTS
An application was filed seeking some information (Ex – A) faced with the refusal to divulge the said information and it is a deemed refusal on the part of the PIO.  Hence this complaint   



III.   PRAYER - RELIEF SOUGHT
1). Access to information as requested
2). To defray the costs and consequential damages entailed.
3). To levy penalties & violation of RTI provisions as provided u/s 20 of RTI ACT.

IV.   GROUNDS FOR PRAYER - RELIEF SOUGHT

1.      The PIO refused to furnish the information.
2.      The PIO did not respond to my application within or beyond the stipulated time limit,
         as required u/s 7(1)
3.      Application fee was not refunded as provided u/s 7(6). 
4.      The instant refusal is unreasonable, willfull &  malafide and hence attract the penal provisions
         under RTI Law


SELF VERIFICATION
I, XX XXXXX, S/o A A AAAA, hereby affirm and state that, the facts and circumstances mentioned herein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.



Place: CITY/TOWN                                                                              Sd/-                                              Date:dd/mm/year                                                                                NAME


Copy  To: 1) Respondent-PIO
                 2) FAA




Complaint agasint PIO, Complaint for deemed refusal, Complaint for no response by PIO,
Complaint under section 18(1) to information commission

Diaries can be sought under RTI from POLICE

1. Station house diary is the day to day register of complaints/information /VHF received

2. Police diary which is kept by the investigtion officer.

3. General diary is the what are information recevied with respect to all the cases what has
done, history of case etc.

4. Daily diary is a continuation of case diary

5. Case diary is the total compendium information relates to the criminal case which includes
the FIR, charge sheet,witnesses statement, the corbon copies of all the statements,
certificates, and the day to day activities and orders and develoments case till judgement,
until conlcusion of appeal.



As far as RTI is concerned you may sought the information as the above diaries are the public document

No maintenance for wife [ Qualified 498a salty-wife] filed U/s CrPC 125

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CM(M) 1153/2008

KAVITA PRASAD                                                         ….. Petitioner

Through: Mr. S.D. Singh, Adv.

versus

RAM ASHRAY PRASAD                                           ….. Respondent
Through:


CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

O R D E R

01.10.2008
The petitioner who is an MBBS qualified Doctor and admittedly had been in practice before, claims that she was sitting at home despite being a qualified Doctor and does not work. The petitioner claimed maintenance against her husband who is in service. The Trial Court granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month. This petition is made against observation of the Trial Court that she was working somewhere and earning around Rs.8,000 to 10,000/- PM and that the maintenance granted by the Trial Court was made subject to adjustment of the maintenance being received by her under Section 125. Since counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is not working anywhere, despite being a qualified Doctor, I consider that as she is receiving maintenance from husband, the Court should not allow her experience and qualification to go waste. I consider that she should be directed to work as a honorary Doctor in some public welfare institute or school free of charges where she can take care of health of the poor people. Let her come to Court and give an undertaking that she was prepared to work without charging anything in any institution named by this Court around her house minimum 5 hours a day and 6 days a week, so long she receives maintenance from her husband on the plea of being unemployed.
List on 23rd October, 2008.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA,J
OCTOBER 01, 2008

Lawyers are not liable to consumer court

Lawyers are not laible to consumer court agaisnt their Clients

The State Commission, Delhi, by its order dated 10.3.2006 in Appeal No.1815 of 2000  held that the services rendered by the Lawyer would not come within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the client executes the power of attorney authorizing the Counsel to do certain acts on his behalf and there is no term of contract as to the liability of the lawyer in case he fails to do any such act. The State Commission further observed that it is a unilateral contract executed by the client giving authority to the lawyer to appear and represent the matter on his behalf without any specific assurance or undertaking.

Landmark judgement by Jsutice M.B.Shah and Mrs Rajyalakshmi Rao

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 1392 OF 2006
(From the order dated  10.3.2006 in Appeal No.1815/2000 of the State Commission,  Delhi)



D. K. Gandhi
PS, National Institute of
Communicable  Diseases,
22, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi-110 054.                                            …    Petitioner

Vs.

M. Mathias,
20, Dhirpur,
Nirankari Colony,
Delhi-110 009                                           …      Respondent



BEFORE :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT
          MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER


For the Petitioner                             …      In Person
                                                           

For the Respondent              …      In Person



Dated the  6th  August , 2007
O R D E R

M.B.SHAH, J. PRESIDENT.

                    The State Commission, Delhi, by its order dated 10.3.2006 in Appeal No.1815 of 2000  held that the services rendered by the Lawyer would not come within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the client executes the power of attorney authorizing the Counsel to do certain acts on his behalf and there is no term of contract as to the liability of the lawyer in case he fails to do any such act. The State Commission further observed that it is a unilateral contract executed by the client giving authority to the lawyer to appear and represent the matter on his behalf without any specific assurance or undertaking.
                  
                   Against that order the Complainant has preferred this Revision Petition.

Findigns:
                    In our view, the reasoning given by the State Commission is totally erroneous. The ambit and scope of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act  which defines ‘service’ is very wide and by this time  well established.   It covers all services except  rendering of services free of charge or a contract of personal service.  Undisputedly,  lawyers are rendering service.  They are charging fees.  It is not a contract of personal service.  Therefore, there is no reason to hold that they are not covered by the provisions  of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.   The State Commission approached the question totally in an erroneous manner by holding that by executing power of attorney the client authorizes the Lawyer to do certain acts on his behalf  and there is no term of contract as to the liability of the lawyer  in case  he fails to do such act.   It is to be stated that a Lawyer may not be responsible for the favourable outcome of a case as the result/out come does not depend upon only on lawyers’ work. But, if there is deficiency in rendering services promised, for which consideration in the form of fee is received by him, then the lawyers can be proceeded against under the Consumer Protection Act. Further, it is totally erroneous to hold that it is a unilateral contract  executed by the client  by giving authority to the lawyer  to appear and represent the matter. Apparently, it is a bilateral contract between the client and the lawyer, and, that too, on receipt of fees, lawyer would appear and represent the matter on behalf of his client. To hold that contract is unilateral is to ignore the fact that even after discussion the client may not engage the Advocate or the Advocate may refuse to accept the brief. Hence, such a contract can never be said to be unilateral. 

                   Further, it is not necessary to refer to judgments on this well settled law, still, we would refer to the case of  Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243 , at pages 254-255, wherein the Apex Court  observed as under:
“The concept of service thus is very wide. How it (the concept of ‘service’) should be understood and what it means, depends on the context in which it has been used in any enactment. Clause ( o ) of the definition section defines it as under:
 “ ‘service’ means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service;”
It is in three parts. The main part is followed by inclusive clause and ends by exclusionary clause. The main clause itself is very wide. It applies to any service made available to potential users. The words ‘any’ and ‘potential’ are significant. Both are of wide amplitude. The word ‘any’ dictionarily means ‘one or some or all’. In Black’s Law Dictionary it is explained thus, “word ‘any’ has a diversity of meaning and may be employed to indicate ‘all’ or ‘every’ as well as ‘some’ or ‘one’ and its meaning in a given statute depends upon the context and the subject-matter of the statute”. The use of the word ‘any’ in the context it has been used in clause ( o ) indicates that it has been used in wider sense extending from one to all.

                   The Court held that the importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society inasmuch as it attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer as he faces against powerful business; “producers have secured power” to “rob the rest”.  The might of public bodies which are degenerating into storehouses of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless and shocked.    

                    To what extent the aforesaid observations apply to various professions in the country is to be imagined and it is a matter of guess work.

                    Thereafter in the case of Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and Others   - 1995 (6) SCC 651  the Apex Court discussed whether medical practitioner would be covered by the said definition.  For this purpose, it was observed that in the matter of professional liability, professions differ from other occupations for the reason that professions operate in spheres where success cannot be achieved in every case and very often success or failure depends upon factors beyond the professional man’s control.  In devising a rational approach to professional liability which must provide proper protection to the consumer while allowing for the factors mentioned above, the approach of the courts is to require that professional men should possess a certain minimum degree of competence and that they should exercise reasonable care in the discharge of their duties.  If there is negligence on the part of medical practitioner, the right of affected person to seek redress would be covered by the Act.  Medical practitioners would not be outside the purview of the provisions of the Act.
                   The same principle would apply in case of service to be rendered by a lawyer.
                  

                   Lastly, in Kishore Lal Vs. Chairman, Employees’ State Insurance Corpn. (2007) 4 SCC 579 the Apex  observed:

 “It has been held in numerous cases of this Court that jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora has to be construed liberally so as to bring many cases under it for their speedy disposal.  The Act being a beneficial legislation, it should receive a liberal construction”.


                   Finally in the  case  of Jacob Mathew  vs. State of Punjab – (2005) 6 SCC 1 (para 18) the Apex Court has held that in law of negligence, professionals such as lawyers, doctors, architects and others are included in the category of persons professing some special skill or skilled persons  generally and a professional may  be held  liable  for negligence on one of the two findings: either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess.          

                   Further, this Commission has taken a consistent view that if there is deficiency in service rendered by the Lawyers, complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is maintainable.

                   For the reasons stated above, the impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the matter is remitted to the State Commission for  deciding the same on merits in accordance with law.  The Appeal stands allowed accordingly.   There shall be no order as to costs.                
                                                                                           Sd/-
                                                              …………………………………….J.
                                                                                                  ( M.B.SHAH )
                                                                                                    PRESIDENT


                                                                                           Sd/-
                                                               ……………………………………...
                                                                                 (RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)
                                                                                                          MEMBER






Lawyers are not liable to consumer court agaisnt their Clients,
layman courts

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT UNDER RTI

1. RTI is a service provider under Consumer Protection Act 1986. Information seeker under RTI is a consumer of public authority under Consumer Protection Act 1986. The is in addition to remedies available under Right to Information Act.  As such, District Consumer Forum and State/National Consumer Commissions have jurisdiction to try complaints relating to deficiency in service concerning RTI.


2. Non-supply of information or supply of defective, incomplete, misleading information, would amount to deficiency in service by the public authority under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.


3. Supply of information beyond time limit fixed by RTI Acts would also amount to deficiency in service by the public authority.


4. In State Commissions Payment of compensation, damages, expenses to information seeker is rare under RTI Act(based on the jduges), but in general it is allowed under Consumer Protection Act 1986 of which applicant(information seeker) can claim the same.


5. Information seeker under RTI can obtain appropriate directions to the public authority from Consumer Forum/ Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, for removing deficiency in service.


6. Provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986 can reasonably be extended to first appeal since appeal is an extension of RTI application.


7. In State Commissions Payment of compensation, damages, expenses to information seeker is rarity under RTI Acts, while it is normally allowed under Consumer Protection Act 1986.


8. Applicants under earlier RTI Acts of various States and of Right to Information Act 2005 can avail this additional remedy against public authority.


9. Consumer Protection Act 1986 can also be invoked against SICs [specially for delay in decision] where fees are to be paid for second appeal/complaint. Some one can try this remedy against CIC and also SICs, where fees are not required to be paid for second appeal or complaint. 


10. CIC and all SICs can be proceeded against under Consumer Protection Act 1986 for deficiency in supply of their own information.



Landmark Judgement:

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO.  1975 OF 2005
(Against the order dated 1.10.05 in Appeal No.244/04  of the State Commission, Karnataka)


Dr. S.P. Thirumala Rao
Consultant Physician
No.1138/3, Narayanasastry Road
Devaraja Mohalla                                                                                                       ........ Petitioner
Mysore – 570 001      
                                      Vs.
Municipal Commissioner
Mysore City Municipal Corporation
Sayyaji Rao Road.
Mysore – 570 024                                                                                                      …….Respondent

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA,
PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

For the Petitioner                      :           Mr. Aditya Narain, Advocate
                                                            Ms. Astha Tyagi, Advocate

For the Respondent                  :            NEMO

Pronounced on : 28th  May, 2009
ORDER
                  

The District Forum had dealt with the objections raised by the opposite party regarding bar of jurisdiction of Courts under Section 10 of the Act as also the overriding affect of the Act.  The State Commission in the impugned order did not at all refer to the findings of the District Forum on the said issues but allowed the appeal only on the ground that once the complainant had already availed remedy under the said Act and appeal is provided therein, the complainant cannot maintain a complaint under the CP Act. We may at this stage point out that the findings of the District Forum with reference to Section 10 & 11 are supported by reasons which do not call for any interference. In fact, the view taken by the District Forum is in consonance with the rulings of this Commission in the case of Smt. Kalawati (Supra) and Smt. Ushal Rani Aggarwal (Supra). We entirely agree with the reasoning of District Forum on this aspect.  Though, the said Act provides for penalties under Section 9 of the said Act on the competent authority, yet, the Act does not provide for any remedy to the consumers who have sought information under the said Act for deficiency of service in the nature of compensation or damages for not furnishing the informations ought to which they are entitled to get under the said Act.  Section 3 of the CPA provides additional remedy in addition to the remedies provided under other Acts and it is not in derogation of any provisions of any law.  The Consumer Fora has, therefore, jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in respect of deficiency of service in the given facts especially when information sought was not furnished.  The competent authority was required to give information within 15 days of the application in terms of Section 5 of the said Act.  However, the said information was not furnished. The complainant had approached the District Forum claiming compensation/damages for deficiency of service.  Even though, further remedy may be available to the applicant in case information is not supplied in terms of Section 5 of the Act within 15 days, yet, there is no bar to approach the District Forum for deficiency of service.  The remedy under the said Act would take care of disciplinary action and penalty against the competent authority in not furnishing the information but no remedy is provided under the said Act to the applicant seeking information therein if information sought is not provided resulting in deficiency of service on that count.  The applicant had paid a fee of Rs.10/- for seeking the said information.  The case of the applicant would fall within the scope and ambit of Section 2(i)(o) of CP Act, which provides that service means service of any description which is made available to potential users, which include purveying of news or supplying of other information. The complainant had availed of the services under the said Act for consideration by paying fee and had sought information under the said Act, which was not supplied to him, which amounts to deficiency of service.  The complainant is, thus, a consumer vis-à-vis information sought on payment under the said Act.   In our view, therefore, the State Commission was wrong while holding that once the complainant had availed the remedy against which appeal was provided, he could not maintain a complaint under the CP Act. 
For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order of the State Commission is liable to be set aside and the order of the District Forum is restored. In the facts and circumstances, we shall leave the parties to bear their own cost.
                                                                                    …………………..………J
                                                                                                        (R.K. BATTA)
                                                                                      ( PRESIDING MEMBER)

                                                                                  ……………….……………
                                                                                                           (S.K. NAIK)
                                                                                                               MEMBER
k

COMPLAINT agasint PIO for misleading information

BEFORE THE HON'BLE INFORMATION COMISSION: CITY

Between:

Complainant
Address:
City/town                                                                           ...…Complainant


PIO
O/o: Respondent 1
City/town                                                                               .....Respondent 1

PIO
O/o: Respondent 2
City/town                                                                               .....Respondent 2



COMPLAINT FILED U/S 18 OF RTI ACT – 2005


I.   INDEX of DOCUMENTS(ENCLOSED)
1). My RTI Application dated   u/s 6               ……Exhibit A
2) Speed/Regd  Post Article                            ……Exhibit B
3). The PIO response u/s 6(3)                         ……Exhibit C
3). The PIO Response from other Public Authority (Respondent 2)
Lr. No. RTI/E.O-1/2010, dated 20/12/10                     ...…Exhibit C


II.   FACTS
The Complainant who needed some information from the first respondent filed an application (Exhibit - A). The PIO-first respondent, forwarded the application u/s 6(3) to PIO-second respondent (Ex - B).  The PIO of second respondent furnished her responses through her reply letter (Ex - C) to the 10 queries raised. Some of the PIO’s responses indicate that PIO is the wrong address/custodian of the information asked as such, apparently sec 6(3) referral is a mis-direction to a wrong destination some other responses are clearly false and misleading. Hence this complaint.


III.   PRAYER - RELIEF SOUGHT
1). To issue directions for disclosure of information asked.
2). To defray the costs and consequential damages entailed.
3). To levy penalties and violation of RTI provisions as provided u/s 20 of RTI ACT.



IV.   GROUNDS FOR PRAYER - RELIEF SOUGHT
1). The PIO-first respondent is the principal custodian of the records pertaining to the information asked[he being the chairperson of the committee.] However, PIO passed the buck to other Public Authourity who declared that he held no information for most of the questions asked, namely questions ??????

2). The PIO-second respondent furnished false and misleading information to
questions ??????, by giving irrelevant, unrelated and unsolicited information.

3). The two Public Authourities indulged in a game of buck passing instead of displaying any due diligence for compliance.

4). The response from both Public Authouriteis displaying gross ignorance about the information as asked.
5). To cover up their ignorance and opacity they restored to buck passing and  pillar-to-post referrals.

6). Both the functionaries failed to apprise the complainant about the onward appellate procedures and processes as provided required u/s 7(8) (ii) and (iii).



SELF VERIFICATION


I, XX XXXXX, S/o A A AAAA, hereby affirm and state that, the facts and circumstances mentioned herein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.


Place: CITY                                                                     X XX XXXXX
Date:                                                                               COMPLAINANT


Copy  To: Respondent 1 PIO
                Respondent 2 PIO

COMPLAINT AGAINST PIO FOR refusing bluntly and categorically

BEFORE THE HON'BLE INFORMATION COMISSION:CITY

Between:


NAME
Address:
                                                                         ….Complaint

AND;

PIO-1
Address:
                                                                        ....Respondent 1

PIO-2
Address:
                                                                        ....Respondent 2

FAA
Address:
                                                                        ....Respondent 3



                            COMPLAINT FILED U/S 18(1)(B) & (C) OF RTI ACT – 2005


I.   INDEX of DOCUMENTS(ENCLOSED)

1). My RTI Application dated ??/??/?? u/s 6                           ......Exhibit A
2) Speed/Regd post Article                                                     ......Exhibit B
2). The PIO response letter No ?????? , dated ??/??/??          ......Exhibit C
3). My First Appeal dated ??/??/??     u/s 19(1)                      ......Exhibit D
4). PIO Response from other Public
Authority (Respondent) letter dated 30/12/10                         ......Exhibit E


II.   FACTS
The Appellant who needed some information forwaded the application to the other rmation from the First Public Authourity filed and application (Exhibit - A). The First PIO duly forwarded the application to the other Public Authourity(Respondent) by marking a copy to the appellant(Ex -B) with directions to contact them. After due compliance, there was no response from the other Public Authourities, thus resulting in the First Appeal (Ex- C).  Consequently, the other Public Authourity  u/s 6(3) that is (Respondent) through a letter(Ex- D) but refused to give access to the information as asked bluntly and categorically.  He also arrogated to himself and his organization in all the waivers exemptions and immunities provided in RTI Act with a view as to justify his non-disclosure. Hence this complaint.


III.   PRAYER - RELIEF SOUGHT
1). To issue directions for disclosure of information asked.
2). To defray the cost and consequential damages entailed.
3). To levy penalties & violation of RTI provisions as provided u/s 20 of RTI ACT.


IV.   GROUNDS FOR PRAYER - RELIEF SOUGHT
1). The Respondent, despite being declared a Public Authourity by concerned Regulatory body has repudiated his obligation and mis informed about his status.            

2). The Respondent, has wrongfully setaside my application for the reasons that it contained “a questionnaire” without any application of mind.

3). The Respondent, has brought a dispute of Public Interest into the issue which is totally out of context and against the Law.

4). The Respondent, without any basis for justification declared Organisation as immune to RTI Law.
         
5). In the same breadth, he claimed exemption provided by RTI law without any basis or clarifications.

6). The Respondent, failed to appraise appellant about the onward appellate procedures and processes as provided required u/s 7(8) (III)

7). The repudiation of obligation & denial of information or unreasonable, willfull &  malafide and hence attract the penal provisions of RTI Law notwithstanding the comprehense.


SELF VERIFICATION

I, XX XXXXX, S/o A A AAAA, hereby affirm and state that, the facts and circumstances mentioned herein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.



Place: CITY/TOWN                                                            NAME
Date:dd/mm/year                                                            COMPLAINANT



Copy  To: 1) PIO- 1
                 2) PIO- 2
                 3) FAA

DP3 Complaint against Father-in-Law and Mother-in-Law [ Dowry Givers and Abettors] to Court

IN THE HONOURABLE COURT OF CJM/CMM
Location (City/Village)

 O.P. No:         OF 2010

BETWEEN:

Mr.  ?????? S/o: ????????

Occ:?????, AGE:??,

R/o: ?????
                                                                                                       ….COMPLAINANT

                                                                  AND:

DP3 (Dowry Giver) S/o or W/o: ??????

Occ: ?????, AGE:?? ,

R/o:????? 
     

DP3 ( Abettor) S/o or W/o: ??????

Occ: ?????, AGE:?? ,

R/o:????? 
                                                                                                       ....ACCUSED

COMPLAINT FILED U/S 200 Cr.P.C.

Humble complaint petition filed on behalf of the abovenamed coplainant.

Nature of offence:                                      U/s 3 of DPA

Date/Time of occurance:                             ————
Place of offence:                                         ————

Jurisdiction of police Station:                       Local Police Station,    

List of Witness:                                           The Complainant

May it please your Honour, 

I, Name,  S/o ??????, the Complainant herein, Age: atttained Puberty, Occupation: Private employee, R/o #2728, A.P. - 498.  hereby state that respectfully submit that 

On Date  my wife Smt. 498a [aka: name ] filed a criminal complaint with FIR No.114/2010 & CC No. 170/2011 on the file of your [498a Bench] Police Station and Hon’ble Court of First Additional Metropolitan Magistrate respectively. The SHO/IO have reportedly investigated and verified the facts and filed a charge sheet. 


In the complaint Smt. 498a  the de facto complainant claimed that she had given a sum of 
Rs. 1,00,000 as dowry and  purportedly given to me during the marriage ceremony held on date  @ 498a marriage. The IO/SHO have reportedly investigated and verified the facts and filed a charge sheet with the memo of evidence these are part of your station records.  In your memo of evidence you have further affirmed and testified to a court of law to the fact of giving and taking of dowry and its related abetments by the concerned and named offenders.


In this connection it is submitted for you kind information that “dowry giving and its abetment” is a cognizable offence U/s 3 of DP Act, 1961. I need not emphasize or over state this aspect as your station authourities are not only well versed with penal code in general and specific case detail in particular. 


CAUSE OF ACTION

The cause of action for this Petition arose on ??????, when the respondent

            

JURISDICTION

The Petitioner as well as the Respondent were residing at ??????,   when the cause of action arose and thus this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try and adjudicate this Petition.

VALUATION

The Petitioner is paying a court fee of Rs. 10/- which is sufficient as per the Act.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, prayed that your honour may be pleased direct the 498a Bench Police Station to take cognizance of the offence (s) against the accused  person(s) [498a FIL, MIL, BIL, SIL] and register FIR and they may be summoned to face the trial
.

Place: ??????                                 

Date:??????                                                                            Complainant

RTI 2 get your entire Case Dairy

                                                    RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT– 2005
                                                                    [Application u/s 6]



From                                     To
Name                                      Public Information Officer(State)–RTI
Adderess:                              O/o Station House Officer ,
Village           .                       ?????????? police Station,
City - Pin                               Village/City – Pin
---------------Date:                --------------------------------------------
Sir,


I am the accused/ victim in a false criminal case filed by my wife. In order to prepare my defence, I request the following certified copies from your records urgently:
·        Complaint
·        FIR
·        Witness List
·        Statement of witness
·        Memo of evidence
·        Charge Sheet
·        List of exhibits if any
·        Extracts from case and station diaries as relevant to the case


Also please arrange to furnish the following information:
1.      Limitation of period allowed to file the charge sheet under law.
2.      Time taken so far or till filing the charge sheet whichever is earlier.
3.      Whether discharge proceedings initiated for want of filing charge-sheet within prescribed time limit.
          If so furnish extract of discharge proceedings, If not reasons?
4.       If charge sheet was not field within prescribed time limit whether permission from competent     
          authority obtained in for delayed filing.

The needful information may please be arrange within prescribed time limit


Thanking you,                                                                       
                                                                                 Yours sincerely,

  
                                                                                      Sd/-
                                                                                   [NAME]