1) Section 8(1)(h) states: “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders”

2) PIOs must give information under RTI even if an investigation is pending

3) 

the full order can be accessed here: http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2012_000748_M_103041.pdf

The forensic report cannot be shared with you at this stage as the investigation is ongoing. After the investigation is completed the police shall file a charge sheet or a final report based upon the findings and then a copy of the report shall be provided to you. Till then you have to wait.

Regards 

www.moneylife.in/article/pios-must-give-information-under-rti-even-if-an-investigation-is-pending/31960.html

Hi,

You may file an appeal under section 19 of RTI Act for getting the report. 

See you cannot get report pending the investigation once the document is submitted before the court you can get certified copy and you can further direction if you want investigation after that.

See only selective information can be disclosed pending investigation meaning there by which doesn't impeads the investigation copy of report you can wait till they file report in court.

Dear Client,

Mere existence of an investigation process cannot be used to deny information. Only those information cannot be disclose which are crucial in investigation and on making public will have adverse effect on investigation. In this case, you himself in complainant, hence entitle to under RTI. 

And forensic report is not that crucial piece which can be denied even to accused.

Please go through State of Madras V/s G. Krishnan decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and AIR 1961 Mad.92 1961 Cr L J 382.

The Public Information Officer ( PIO) can deny the information under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act and stating that it would impede investigation.

even if the investigation is pending, the officer cannot deny the information, unless the seeking of the information impedes or obstructs in the carrying on of the investigation or inquiry

there is no such section or rule under RTI which says that if an investigation is pending then the information cannot be given

the only restriction is with effect to any application seeking information which if disclosed would delay the investigation

as the officer has denied information for the reason that info cannot be given as investigation is pending and NOT because disclosure of that information will obstruct the investigation, you can file a first appeal against the officer's order

i dont have any citation off hand but certainly there is a ruling to the above effect

Hello,

Section-8(1)(h) of the RTI Act exempts,

"information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;". However The CIC has passed judgment otherwise also 

Bhagatsingh vs CIC WP (c ) no.3114/2007, Justice Ravindra Bhat has held: 

"13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information.

14. A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like the Act, should receive a liberal interpretation. The contextual background and history of the Act is such that the exemptions, outlined in Section 8, relieving the authorities from the obligation to provide information, constitute restrictions on the exercise of the rights provided by it. Therefore, such exemption provisions have to be construed in their terms; there is some authority supporting this view (See Nathi Devi vs Radha Devi Gupta 2005 (2) SCC 201; BR Kapoor vs State of Tamil Nadu 2001 (7) SCC 231 and V Tulasamma vs Sesha Reddy 1977 (3) SCC 99). Adopting a different approach would result in narrowing the rights and approving a judicially mandated class of restriction on the rights under the Act, which is unwarranted."

The investigation officer will not provide you the copies and he will submit all the reports along with the investigation report to the court there from you can get the copy of the entire report including the police papers

Dear Sir,

The stand taken by investigation officer is legally correct during the pendency of investigation except court nobody has right to peep into documents of investigation officer.  You may take a chance and approach the concerned court and ask the court to get case dairies along with reports and later get copies of such documents from the court with the permission of the court.

When the forensic department have denied furnishing the reports pending court cases, you cannot enforce it by any judgment, because court will not interfere in the law meant for it.

You may file an appeal agaisnt this decision and get the reply from the appellate authorities till the top about it.

The following CIC decisions interpreting the RTI Act 2005 give valuable clarification inapplying
exemptions and responding t o the RTI applications seeking information relating to ongoing
investigations:-
(1) Investigation into tax evasion can be said to be over or complete, only after the final
adjudication about the tax liability had been made after the matter has gone through all the
stages of appeals and revisions as well as a final decision about prosecuting or not
prosecuting that person has been taken by an appropriate competent authority.
In the case of Shri Shanker Sharma and M/s. First Global Stock broking Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs.
Director of Income Tax (Inv.)-II & CPIO, Deptt. of Income Tax, Mumbai (F. No.
CIC/AT/A/2007/00007 dated 10.07.2007) the applicant had sought names and details of informer on
the basis of whose information searches were conducted on Shanker Sharma and Devina Mehra by
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation) on reasonable belief. Tax evasion is frequently
a complex and elaborate process. The evader is often not a single person, but is part of an
elaborate network, in which criminal elements ― even mafia, are closely involved. The persons who
supply information to the public authority about tax evaders are, no doubt, actuated by the lure of
the rewards which come their way for successful identification of tax evasion. Yet, at the same time,
such persons are also accepting grave risks to themselves and their families. If their names and
identities are disclosed, they can very well incur the wrath of the persons who suffer financially on
account of the action by the public authority, as well as of the criminal elements who may be behind
the scene operators. Divulging the source of the public authority‟s information, on the basis of which
such authority acts to recover the legitimate revenues of the State, would cripple the very
functioning of this Department, and will have deleterious and long-lasting affect on its functioning as
well as on the State‟s revenues.
DECISION:
The CPIO also explained, at great length, as to how the Department creates a database of its
informants and sources, and code-names them so that their identities can be a strictly guarded
secret. This is not known even to officers within the public authority, except those who may be
directly dealing with the matter. To disclose the nature of the information even after deleting from it
the names of the specific sources of the informant, can potentially damage the entire system. I
agree with this reasoning.
In consideration of the above, the appeals are rejected.

Being a victim of the said circumstances you can get the copy the IO always deny the same under the guise of invetigation. File a First appeal of RTI and pray for the same.