Manishankar Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (PIL) No. 106 of 2016 Manishankar Pandey S/o Late Shri Ramkhilawan Pandey, aged about 47 years, R/o village Tifra, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Tehsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1.
The State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2.
The Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
3.
The Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4.
Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
5.
The Excise Commissioner, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6.
The Management, Rama Magneto Mall Through Chief Executive Officer, Shrikant Verma Marg, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 7.
T.D.S.Bar, Rama Magneto Mall Campus, Shrikant Verma Marg, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents For Petitioner : In person.
For Respondent/State : Shri Prafull N Bharat, Additional Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Gupta, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, J.
Order on Board Per Deepak Gupta, Chief Justice 05/12/2016 1.
This petition is absolutely not a public interest litigation. It is more than obvious that the Petitioner has been set up by somebody else.
2.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that the investigation in the case relating to death of one Gaurang Bobde has not been properly conducted by the State police and the investigation should be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
3.
From the facts which are evident from the petition, it is apparent that the deceased Gaurang Bobde himself belonged to a very well off family. He did not belong to that deprived section of society who cannot represent themselves in the Court and therefore need some social activist to represent them. 4.
In this case, a criminal case is pending in the Court and charges have been framed by the trial Court .Once the trial Court is seized of the matter, then normally this Court will not entertain a public interest litigation for changing the investigating agency.
5.
If the relatives have any objection that the investigation is not being done in a proper manner, they falling under the category of victim under the amended Code of Criminal Procedure, have sufficient rights for redressal of their grievance. No public interest litigation can be entertained in such a manner. No element of public interest involved.
6.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/- (Deepak Gupta) (Sanjay Agrawal) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Amit