Delhi HC refuses to direct FIR registration in administrative clerk suicide case | Delhi News


Delhi HC refuses to direct FIR registration in administrative clerk suicide case

New Delhi: Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to order the registration of an FIR in connection with the suicide of a 43-year-old administrative clerk earlier this month, saying that the court was conscious of the situation and that steps as warranted are being taken. A bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia noted that proceedings under Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which mandates a police inquiry into suicides, are being conducted by an executive magistrate and a report is awaited.

Delhi Headlines Today — Key Stories You Shouldn’t Miss.

“Further action warranted under the law would depend on the outcome of the proceedings. We do not find at this juncture any reason to issue a direction for lodging an FIR,” the court said. It added that relief was extended to the deceased’s family promptly and steps are being taken to fill vacancies in clerical posts. The court said an audit is underway to assess vacancy, occupancy and workload in district courts and to rationalise the distribution of work. Harish Singh Mahar, an ahlmad (administrative clerk), allegedly jumped to his death from a building inside the Saket court complex on Jan 9. Police said he left a suicide note mentioning work pressure. The court was hearing a PIL filed by Anand Legal Aid Forum Trust seeking an FIR and directions to fill ahlmad and related clerical vacancies. The petition claimed Mahar repeatedly sought a transfer to a lighter posting but was ignored, forcing him to take the extreme step. The bench clarified that Mahar was promoted to the post of ahlmad in Nov last year to a less strenuous role. “We have no doubt that adequate steps will be taken to fill up the vacancies at the earliest,” the court said. Pointing out that Mahar was associated with a fully digitised traffic court, the bench said, “To say he was handling 3,000 files attracts public attention, but it is not correct.” When the petitioner’s counsel claimed Mahar, who was differently abled, was under pressure and had sought transfer four times, the court said this was not accurate.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *