'Publicity Interest Litigation, Why Should We Doubt Police?': Delhi HC Dismisses PIL Seeking CBI Probe In Shraddha Murder Case

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking transfer of probe in the Shraddha Walkar murder case from Delhi Police to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The court also said it will impose a cost on the petitioner.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said the case filed by a lawyer is nothing more than a "publicity interest litigation".

The court also orally remarked that the petitioner was a stranger to the matter and had filed the PIL "for obvious reasons."

Stating that the court is not a monitoring agency, the court remarked: "This is nothing more than a publicity interest litigation. You are a bystander….the Police is doing the investigation. We don't monitor Investigation. Why should we doubt the police?"

Counsel appearing for the Delhi Government informed court that there was no research done and the plea was filed without mentioning any relevant ground. 

On the other hand, the Delhi Police told court that 80 percent of the investigation in the case is complete, adding that a team of Additional Commissioner of Police, ACP (Cyber Cell) and about 200 police officials are involved in the probe.

ASG Chetan Sharma also submitted that the petitioner cannot dictate how the investigation has to be done or should have been done.

#BREAKING

"Nothing more than a publicity interest litigation": Delhi High Court dismisses with costs PIL seeking transfer of investigation in the Shraddha Walkar murder case from @DelhiPolice to #CBI. #ShraddhaWalkar #AftabAminPoonawalla pic.twitter.com/o9MDJZ9yny

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) November 22, 2022

Advocate Joshini Tuli in the PIL had alleged that the Delhi Police have revealed "each and every detail" regarding their investigation to the media and public, which is not permissible in law.

The plea added that the presence of media and public at place of recoveries and court hearings amounts to "interference with the evidence and witnesses."

"That the abovementioned incident of murder is alleged to have been taken place in Delhi and thereafter the body parts have been alleged to have disposed at different places, thus investigation of P.S. Mehrauli cannot efficiently be carried out due to administrative/staff paucity as well as lack of sufficient technical and scientific equipment to find out the evidence and the witnesses as the incident had taken place about 6 months back in May, 2022," the plea argued.

The horrific murder came to light when Shraddha's father filed a missing complaint on September 15. An FIR was then registered under Section 365 of Indian Penal Code on October 11 against the victim's live-in-partner Aftab Amin Poonawala.

On the basis of Aftab's alleged disclosure statement, other offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC were added to the FIR alleged.

Aaftab is accused of strangling Shraddha to death and allegedly chopping her body into multiple pieces before dumping them.

Aftab is presently in police custody. A city court last week granted permission to the Delhi Police to conduct his narco analysis.

In this backdrop, Tuli added that on the said date, Aftab could not be produced physically before court due to the high sensitivity of the matter and also because of "fear of different religious groups attacking and injuring him."

"It is pertinent to mention here that the Court of the Ld. MM on 17.11.2022 when the Accused was produced was chock a block with Media persons leaving no space for even the lawyers to step foot in the concerned court room," the plea said.

Title: JOSHINI TULI v. STATE OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1098