Jammu and Kashmir High Court on Monday disposed of a petition filed in “Public Interest” into the “fake encounter killing” of three Rajouri youth this year, underling that the PIL by a third party cannot and should not be entertained.
Three youth— Abrar Ahmed (25), Imtiyaz Ahmed (20) and Mohammed Ibrar (16) were claimed to be militants and killed in a “gunfight” at Amshipora Shopian on July 18 this year. As they turned out to be innocents, on October 2, their bodies were exhumed in Baramulla and handed over to their families.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Puneet Gupta passed the orders as a petition filed by family members of three victims with “same prayer” is pending before the court Jammu’s wing.
“If the prayers made by the petitioner in the present petition are considered viz-a-viz the prayers made in the writ petition filed by the parents of the deceased, it would be evident that most of the prayers are common. Hence, a separate petition filed by the petitioner claiming the same to be in public interest cannot be entertained,” the court said .
Merely adding certain judgments of the Supreme Court laying guidelines with reference to the investigation of the persons killed in encounter will not make any difference as the matter raised by the parents of the deceased is already pending consideration in of the Court, the bench said.
“The provisions of law applicable or any judgment with reference to the subject matter can always be cited even if the same is not quoted in the pleadings,” the court said, adding, “The claim made is with reference to a specific incident for which the petitioner has not been authorized by the aggrieved party to raise a dispute.”
The PIL was filed by Jammu & Kashmir Reconciliation Front through its chairman Dr Sandeep Mawa.
Further, the court said, once the parents of the deceased can approach the Court by filing a petition prior in time, they can always raise whatever grievance they have.
“In such a situation, public interest petition filed by a third party cannot and should not be entertained as he has no locus or cause of action to raise that dispute,” the court said, adding, “It cannot be said to be in larger public interest as the guidelines for investigation in such type of cases have already been laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to by the petitioner himself.” (GNS)