Patiticm under meme 22$ e€ ceastiiutien of ndia {PUgLm iN'E'ERES‘? LETEGA?§GN) §reeemr Smi. Meena Shae‘tri, iearned counsel for the petiiioner. EShri J.K. Giida, learned Additienal Advccate General, fo the Statef responsients. onnen i26“‘¢une,2aesg The follewing order cf the Court was passed by ‘Rejeev Gums; 6i Learned counsel for ihe parties are heard. r HiaH CQuR‘E‘ OF CHHgaTTESGARH AT aLASPUR 122 DEW$50N BENQH Q€ER£§M HQNEBLE SHRI RAJEEV GIEPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRE SUNSL KUMAR SENHA, J. WE. N0. 2%86 (if 2&4 A §§EETE€3NER Forum for _ Fact Finding Documentation and Advocacy, Raipur (CG), Through :- its President Subash Mohapatra S/o. Late Jaiandha? Mahapatra, aged 3Q years, R/o. A-3, Sahani Vihar, Teiibandha, Raipua Vamus RE$PQ$§§ENES 1. Staia of Chhatiisgarh Through :— Secretary Hcme Depaytment, D.K.S‘ Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) l 2. inspector General of Po!ice Chhattisgarh State, Raipur. 3. Superintendent 0f Poiice Biiaspur !\ § \ $3) 4. Po§ice Statmn House Ofecer, PoHce Siatien CM; Lines, Biiespur (CG) 9} The petitioner — Forum has med this writ petition styied as ‘Pubiic interast Litigation’ for the foiiowing reiiefs : “ 721) That, this Hon’bie Court kindiy be pleased to investigate the stated matter by CBI because the incidence is teken place on 7.9.02 and tiii now, in two years, the investigation is not completed, no body has been arrested where prime facie incidence is occurred, the etate agency is unebte to perferm hie duty. 7.2) That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to unieh the liable persons. 13) That, this Hon'loie Court furtherbe pieased to direct the reepondent No.1 to provide the aggrieved person. (Parents of the deceased) a compensation amount of Re.25,DG,DQG/—. T4) That, the Hon’bie Court be pieaeed to direct the respondent No.1 to complete eii the pending investigation urgentiy relating to Crime against the woman within a fix period in Chhattisgarh State. 7.5) That, the Hon’bie Court further be pieased to direot the respondent no.1 to not withdraw the case relating to crime against woman. 7.8) Any other, relief, this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, be also granted to the aggrieved persons with costs of the petition to the petitioner.” 3) Shri 'JK. Giida, iearned Additional Advocate Generai placing reiianoe on the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Reagan steed, “Laian” Witt asd another Vs. Union ot indie ($2 others, reported in t2oo5) o SCC =- $13, has raised a preiiminary objection about We maintainabitity or“ the vvrit petition as ‘Pubiic interest Lttioation’, in a criminal matter. “1'24 4:2 The Apex Court while considering the permissibiiity of filing writ ' ' peiiiian a5 ‘PubHc interest Litigation‘ in crimina‘ matters observed in pera 58 : “m our opinion, pubiis intereet litigation is mean? for ’the benefit of the lest and ioneiy and it is meant for the benefit of those whose social backwardness is the reason for no accese to the court. We aiso say that PiLe are not meant to advance the eoiiticei gain and eieo eettte teeir ecores under the guise of a pubiio interest iitigation and to fight a iegai battie. in our ooinioni the iibertv of an ecouseoi cannot be taken away except h eccerdance with the estabiiehect procedure of iaw tinder the Conetitution criminat procedure and other ooonate stetotee. We are aiso of the opinion that PIL is toteiiy foreign to pending oriminairproceedinge. The records pieced before us wouid onty go to show that Reepondent 4 had no hand in any of these matters whether in the apgoointment of Judge's or in the change of the prosecutor or on the decision not to fiie an appeai in the income tax caees.” t in this View of the matter, the writ petition fiied by the petitioner- Forum ee ‘Pubiic interest Litigation’ is iiabte to be dismissed and is e hereby dismissed. Sdl= Sdi- \i V ’ Chief Jusutce/ gauntt Kenna? Sihha Jodge ' subbu