Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Manoj Kumar Gupta vs Delhi Police on 2 March, 2022

                                 के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई द ली,
                               ली New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/694420

Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta                                          ...   अपीलकता /Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Delhi Police, North West District                    ...   ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Shri T C Bisht- ACP

Date of Hearing                          :   02.03.2022
Date of Decision                         :   02.03.2022
Chief Information Commissioner           :   Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on                 :   23.07.2020
PIO replied on                           :   20.08.2020
First Appeal filed on                    :   25.08.2020
First Appellate Order on                 :   19.09.2020
2ndAppeal/complaint received on          :   02.12.2020

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated23.07.2020 seeking information on following point:-
"As per post mortem report dated 16.05.20, there was suicide note in the cloth of my wife Mrs. Poonam Gupta. This fact was never disclosed or discussed with me. I came to know the same on 11.07.20 when copy of PM report was provided to me (after lots of request) which i needed for applying death certificate. Now the question is that why the IO and SHO has not disclosed/informed me about the suicide note. Why they have hide the same. Further no action has been taken against the people named in suicide note. Even after submission of complaint on 08.06.20 with all documents, SHO sahab has not tell me anything about the note and no action taken. I submitted the request with DCP North West but no action taken. As a complainant and husband of Mrs. Poonam Gupta I request the concerned officers to kindly provide the copy of suicide and also kindly provide the current status of complaint. Also please state the reason in writing why the complaint is not registered so far. Its a clear case of abetment of Page 1 of 3 suicide. The reason of not disclos disclosing ing the suicide note should also be stated. Copy of complaint submitted with SHO and DCP is enclosed."

The PIO /DCP, DCP, NWD, vide letter dated 20.08.2020 furnished information as received from the SHO PS Adarsh Nagar as under:

under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.08.2020. The FAA, DCP, NWD vide order dated 19.09.2020 held as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied,, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from SI Dilip Singh PS Adarsh Nagar dated 26.02.2022 wherein it was stated that on scrutiny of the case file it was found that the FSL results with regard to the suicide note as well as the hand written diary pages of the deceased is still awaited. The 4 persons s named in the suicide note are yet to be arrested and the case is still under investigation.
investigation Page 2 of 3 In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through audio conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through audio conference and the Appellant stated that now action is being taken by the Delhi Police in his case resulting in one of the accused being arrested recently. He is satisfied with regular updates which are being sent by the Respondent with respect to the matter, particularly after this second Appeal has been scheduled for hearing before the Commission. Hence he does not want to pursue the appeal anymore.
Decision:
In the light of the Appellant's request, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Considering the facts of the case, the Respondent is advised to be more proactive and provide as much information as possible in such cases, without waiting for the listing of the Second Appeal before the Commission.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3