Delhi High Court
Rajendra Kumar Shukla vs State N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors. on 15 April, 2009
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah
* 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.1 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.2 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.3 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
