SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 1473

R. C. LAHOTI, G. P. MATHUR
B. P. SINGHAL – Appellant
Versus
State Of T. N. – Respondent


ORDER

1. THE PRINCIPAL RELIEF SOUGHT FOR IN THIS PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND PURPORTING TO BE A PETITION IN PUBLIC INTEREST, IS TO TRANSFER INVESTIGATION IN CRIME CASE NO. 914 OF 2004 FROM THE TAMIL NADU STATE POLICE TO THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. ON THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE PETITION AND AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER, WE ARE NOT SATISFIED THAT THE PETITIONER HAS SATISFIED THE TEST OF BEING A PERSON AGGRIEVED OR HAVING LOCUS STANDI FOR FILING THE PETITION.

2. MOREOVER, WE FIND THAT THE PETITION IS LACKING IN MATERIAL PARTICULARS. ALL THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE PETITION ARE BASED, BY AND LARGE, ON NEWS REPORTS AND NOT ON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE THAT THE PETITIONER HAS TAKEN ANY CARE TO VERIFY HIMSELF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE AVERMENTS MADE. THE COPY OF FIR OR ANY OTHER PAPERS ENABLING FORMATION OF AN OPINION AS TO THE AVERMENTS FORMING SUBJECT-MATTER OF INVESTIGATION HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. NONE OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS, WHO WOULD BE VITALLY INTERESTED IN THE HEARING AND WHO WOULD REALLY BE THE PERSONS AFFECTED, HAVE BEEN JOINED AS PARTY TO THE PETITION. ON THE CONTRARY, VIDE LIST OF DATES (P. A




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top