1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5412 OF 2009 (Sau. Sadhana Rajendra Hiwanj vs. The Commissioner, State Information Commissioner & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. MARCH 25, 2010. Heard Shri Modak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mujumdar, learned AGP for respondent No.2. The petitioner wanted copy of complaint and statements on the basis of which she was called upon by the Special Cell on 18.02.2009 for recording her statement. She did not get it and, therefore, applied under Right To Information Act (RTI Act). The information was denied to her on the ground that it related to a third person (another woman) and that woman had objected to its disclosure by pointing out that it would cause irreparable damage to her family life. The matter was taken up in appeal and appellate Authority has directed to supply copy of complaint within 10 days from the date of decision i.e. 31.08.2009. Copies of statements were also directed to be given after charge sheet is filed. The application under RTI Act was moved by the petitioner on 06.03.2009, however, record shows 2 that in the meanwhile on 08.05.2009, an FIR under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC came to be filed against the present petitioner, her husband and husband of other lady. Shri Modak, learned counsel has argued that the complainant – lady cannot be treated as third party and according to him when Special Cell wanted to record statement of the petitioner because of grievance of that lady on 05.02.2009, the petitioner was entitled to receive the copy. He has further pointed out that the record show that on 08.05.2009, entry of non cognizable offence under Section 508 read with Section 506 of IPC has been made against the petitioner, her husband and husband of that lady because of complaint made by the other lady. He has contended that recording of FIR has got no relevance in the matter. During arguments, he has also pointed out that a joint statement of the petitioner, her husband and husband of other lady has been recorded. The learned AGP has relied upon the appellate order to show that the directions to supply necessary copies has been issued and copies cannot be given until and unless the charge sheet is filed. Though there is nothing on record to show, it is clear that by now charge sheet must have been filed. In any case the challenge raised by Shri Modak, learned counsel, in this back ground is rendered only academic in the present matter. Hence, keeping 3 the issue open, writ petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach again, if the contingency arises in that respect. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.