W.P.(Crl.) 338/2009 Page No.1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 338 of 2009 RAJENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA ……Petitioner Through: Dr. Adish C. Aggarwala, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.N. Pandey and Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocates. versus STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Mukta Gupta, Senior Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL % O R D E R 15.04.2009 1. The present petition styled as a “Public Interest Litigation” has been filed by the petitioner stating that he is working as a Work Supervisor on a construction site. It is the case of the petitioner that on 13th February, 2009, the petitioner noticed one boy by the name of Anmol having drinks along with five other persons in a nearby jhuggi. It is urged by the petitioner that he asked Anmol to leave the jhuggi. As per the petitioner, some boys later came to him to say that Anmol had hit their friend with a brick and that they had apprehended Anmol. As per the petitioner, he made a phone call to the Police Control Room and when the police arrived he narrated the incident to the police. The petitioner claimed that he also produced Anmol and his friends before the police. As per the petitioner, the police took the injured to the hospital and he handed over Anmol and his friends to W.P.(Crl.) 338/2009 Page No.2 of 4 the police. The case of the petitioner is that to his shock and surprise on 14th February, 2009, he came to know that the Investigating Officer had connived with accused Anmol and had lodged a false and concocted FIR showing Anmol as a complainant, who stated that the injured was hit by one Rajiv and Pulkit and not by Anmol. It is stated that the police arrested Rajiv and Pulkit in case FIR No. 28 of 2009. It has also been averred in the petition that Anmol was threatening the witnesses. The petitioner in the present petition has inter alia asked for transfer of investigation as also record of the details of call made by him to the PCR Van on 13th February, 2009. 2. A status report has been filed on behalf of the respondent, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (for short „GNCTD‟). It appears from the status report that during the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, site plan was prepared and photographs of place of occurrence were taken. The weapon of offence was also taken into possession. On 21st February, 2009, post-mortem on the dead body was got conducted and the body was handed over to the relatives after recording their statements. It is stated in the status report that thereafter on 3rd March, 2009, the petitioner gave a complaint in the office of DCP/Vigilance and Police Station Naraina, Delhi alleging that the deceased had been hit by Anmol and Ajay by brick and when the PCR Van came to the spot they were handed over to the police. The W.P.(Crl.) 338/2009 Page No.3 of 4 statement of the petitioner was also recorded to the effect that to his surprise, the petitioner came to know on 14th February, 2009 that Anmol and Ajay had been left by the police and instead Pulkit and Rajiv had been arrested. It is stated in the status report that the statements of the petitioner and other eye witnesses were contradictory. It is further stated in the status report that investigations are being made in accordance with law and that it appeared that Rajiv and Pulkit and the petitioner were filing false applications and petitions. 3. As held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of West Bengal (2004) 3 SCC 349 a public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It was also held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman vs. Union of India (2006) 5 SCC 28 that public interest litigation should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not be publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. 4. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter as it has been submitted by the GNCTD that investigations in accordance with law are on. This is not a fit case for us to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of W.P.(Crl.) 338/2009 Page No.4 of 4 India. No case for such an interference has been made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J. APRIL 15, 2009 sb