The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court found no substantial evidence to warrant further investigation into the death of the writ petitioner's son, based on the review of previous investigations and the findings of multiple SITs.

1. The application for review is sought at the instance of a person whose alleged involvement was a subject of a direction from this court for constituting a Special Investigation Team (for short, 'SIT') to investigate into the cause of death of the writ petitioner's son.

2. The case had been registered suo moto by this court under the orders of the Chief Justice on a complaint received by him that the petitioner's son had not committed suicide as it was made out to be, but it was a case of homicide. It was stated at the time of arguments when the order was pronounced on 10.02.2015 that there were several suspicious circumstances which had not been properly investigated. A cancellation report was said to have been filed before the jurisdictional magistrate but I believed at that time that in the light of some suspicious circumstances made out before me, it would be appropriate that the Director General of Police constituted a SIT with the officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and two other police officials to assist him to carry out the investigation of the complaint in FIR No. 667, dated 28.12.2009, registered after the death of the deceased-son.

3. An application for review is filed by one Sanjiv Chaturvedi under whom the deceased was admittedly working. He was not a party to the proceedings but he has moved the application for review to state that the court has not considered the fact that just not one, but as many as 4 SITs had been constituted at various points of time. It was found that there was nothing suspicious about the death and a fresh investigation would needlessly cause harassment to him, for, the writ petitioner's false imputation has been motivated and engineered by some persons who were out to settle scores against the applicant who had brought to light serious acts of corruption in the Forest Department. Some of the officials, who have been implicated and against whom criminal cases have been registered have now set up the writ petitioner to make wild allegations of the applicant's alleged involvement for the death of the petitioner's son. There is simply no room to implicate the applicant. A fresh investigation is a needless exercise.

4. I must observe at the outset that a constitution of a SIT does not really amount to recording a finding that a particular person is guilty. At the time when I passed the impugned order, I was only under the impression that there were 3 important circumstances which would merit serious consideration: (i) there was a suicide note alleged to have been recovered at the place that implicated the applicant Sanjiv Chaturvedi as being responsible for carrying out witch hunt against him; (ii) there were some SMS registered in the cell phone of the deceased that gave indication of the persons, who had been tormenting the deceased and who could have abetted the suicide; (iii) there was a lady who was reportedly going out of place of occurrence whose name was disclosed to be Promila. The presence of the lady at the place and her own involvement was also required to be properly investigated. Apart from this, the writ petitioner was also attempting to point out there was no furniture within the room and it was inconceivable as to how the deceased could have reached upto the ceiling and hanged himself by merely standing on the ground. I had not given full expression of the doubts but I had merely observed in my order that interest of justice would require a further investigation.

5. Now it is pointed out to me that I had not made reference about the fact that a SIT was constituted by order dated 08.02.2012 by the Superintendent of Police, Jhajjar and at that time when the reply was filed by respondents 2 and 3, the investigation was still pending. A still earlier investigation was undertaken by the CIA staff, Jhajjar soon after the lodging of FIR and it was subsequently transferred to SIT headed by DSP (Headquarters) in terms of the order dated 08.03.2010. The