be made from the concerned authorities as to the nature of investigation which may be going on before filing a petition that the investigation be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Admittedly, no such measures were taken by the Petitioner. There is nothing in the petition as to what, in fact, prompted the Petitioner to approach this Court within two-three days of the second publication dated 12th February, 2004, in the newspaper 'Amar Ujala'. Further, the State of Uttar Pradesh had filed its affidavit an year earlier, i.e., on 7th October, 2004, placing on record the steps taken against the Accused persons, including the submission of the charge-sheet before the appropriate court. Despite one year having been elapsed after the filing of the affidavit by the Special Secretary to the Home Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, nothing seems to have been done by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not even controverted what is stated in the affidavit. Ordinarily, we would have dismissed such a misconceived petition with exemplary costs but considering that the Petitioner is a young advocate, we feel that the ends of justice would be met and the necessary message conveyed if a token cost of Rupees one thousand is imposed on the Petitioner.”
