The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition challenging the non-inclusion of criminal charges under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), dealing with culpable homicide, in the investigation into the death of former Tata Sons Chairman Cyrus Mistry. [Sandesh Shivaji Jedhe v. Union of India].The petition filed by Sandesh Jedhe sought directions to the Maharashtra Police to incorporate Section 304 II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) instead of Section 304A (causing death by negligence) IPC against the accused in the Cyrus Mistry accident..A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne remarked that the public interest litigation seemed to be a “publicity interest litigation”, and not for public interest at all. “Charges are to be framed (in the case), chargesheet is already filed (by the prosecution). We do not see any public interest involved in the PIL. We find the present PIL to be without substance or merits or cause. We dismiss with costs,” the Bench ordered..In September last year, Cyrus Mistry and Jehangir Pandole passed away 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 accidentIn the hearing today, Advocates Viquar Rajguru and Sadiq Ali appearing for the petitioner claimed 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.He also pointed out to a forensic report which allegedly indicated 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 carrying Mistry and others..The Court at this point asked him about the source of his information, which the lawyer claimed was a confidential source. The Court also discovered that a pleading in the petition which claimed 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 was not impressed with the submissions and the reckless pleadings filed in the case.“It appears that petitioner without a substantive knowledge of the facts has presented this PIL. 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. When a petition is to be filed in court it has to be substantiated by facts. Especially in PILs,” the Court said. .It thus concluded that since the petitioner was not aware of the facts personally, he should not have filed a petition at all.“The petitioner is not in know of facts personally. He is not remotely connected to the issue. In present scenario petition ought not be filed and not with such loose statements,” the Bench said while dismissing the petition.