The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition pertaining to the investigation into the death of former Tata Sons Chairman Cyrus Mistry which challenges the non-inclusion of criminal charges under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), dealing with culpable homicide.
Sandesh Jedhe who filed the petition has asked for directions to the Maharashtra Police for not putting 304A (causing death by negligence) IPC against the accused in the Cyrus Mistry accident but incorporating Section 304 II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne said that this was more like a publicity interest litigation, and not a public interest at all.
The bench said that the charges are to be framed (in the case), chargesheet is already filed (by the prosecution).
The Court added that they do not see any public interest involved in the PIL. The bench agreed that the PIL was without substance or merits or cause. We dismiss with costs.
In September last year, Cyrus Mistry and Jehangir Pandole succumbed to injuries caused by accident after the car in which they were travelling met with a fatal accident. Anahita and Darius Pandole, who were also in the car at the time, survived the accident
During the hearing on Tuesday, Advocates Viquar Rajguru and Sadiq Ali appearing for the petitioner said that Anahita Pandole, the accused in the case, was under the influence of alcohol while she was driving the car carrying her husband Darius, Mistry and Jehangir Pandole.
The counsel also said that a forensic report indicates that Anahita was under the influence of alcohol as she had been consuming liquor at a café the previous night before she drove the vehicle which carried carrying Mistry.
The Court when asked about the source source of his information, the lawyer claimed it was a confidential source.
The Court also found that a pleading in the petition claims that Anahita’s blood sample had not been collected immediately, was not in tune with the actual facts of the case.
Ali argued that the same had been filed based on news reports.
The Bench however said that it appears that the petitioner without a substantive knowledge of the facts has presented this PIL.
The Court added that when petition is filed, pleadings are on oath, they cannot be casual and wanton pleadings.
The Court relies on the pleadings. Even the statements about drunk driving of accused are not supported by any evidence on record.
The Court added that when a petition is to be filed in court it has to be substantiated by facts. Especially in PILs,
It thus concluded that since the petitioner was not aware of the facts personally, he should not have filed a petition at all and dismissed it.