Vijendra Kumar Rai v. The Public Information Officer

Sr.No.33 WP 3266.15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3266 OF 2015 Vijendra Kumar Rai ..Petitioner

Versus

The Public Information Officer, Officer of the Assistant Commissioner of Police and ors.

..Respondents Mr. Vijendra Kumar Rai, petitioner-in-person. Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP for the State.

Mr. Amit Desai, senior counsel along with Mr. Gopal Shenoy and Mr. Dinesh Tiwari i/b.M/s. A. S. Dayal and Associates, advocates for respondent No.4.

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & S. C. GUPTE, JJ.

DATE : 25th JANUARY, 2016.

P. C. :

Heard.

2.

By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 28th January, 2014, 3rd March, 2014 and 16th May, 2015 passed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. By the order dated 28th January, 2014, respondent No.1-Assistant Information Officer-Gaodevi Police Station rejected the petitioner's application under Section 8(1)(J) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, on the ground that investigation into CR No.283 of 2013 registered for offences punishable under Sections 279 Shubhada S Kadam 1/2

Sr.No.33 WP 3266.15 and 357 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is pending. By the order dated 3rd March, 2014, the first appeal filed by petitioner came to be rejected by the first appellate Court and by the order dated 16th May, 2015, the second appeal filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. Be that as it may, it is not disputed that the Gaodevi Police Station completed the investigation into CR No. 283 of 2013 and also filed charge-sheet against Bhansilal Joshi and accordingly he has been convicted by Metropolitan Magistrate on 7th February, 2015, in the presence of the victims of the said accident. The petitioner seems to be busybody; he has no concern with the incident in question. The petitioner has also sought transfer of investigation of the said CR to CBI. That cannot be done as the accused in the said CR is already convicted. The petition is not only frivolous but mischievous too. We, accordingly, dismiss the petition with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/.

[S. C. GUPTE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.] Shubhada S Kadam 2/2