Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 1286/2007
DEEPAK DADLANI Petitioner
Through; Mr. B.P. Aggarwal, Advocate
CRL.M.C. 1286/2007
DEEPAK DADLANI Petitioner
Through; Mr. B.P. Aggarwal, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No. 1-State
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No. 1-State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
19.11.2013 Vide impugned order of 1'8"' January, 2007 trial court has dismissed petitioner's application for dropping of proceedings qua petitioner in FIR No. 113/2003, under Sections 287/338 of the IPC, registered at police station Defence Colony, New Delhi.
Petitioner is the Regional Manager of Kinetic Escalator and
Elevator Ltd., Pune and he asserts that the maintenance of the escalator installed in the building was with M/S Ansal Mall Management and
Knight Frank India Pvt. Ltd..
The subject matter ofthis FIR relates to an incident of26"" March, 2003 regarding a child of two years injuring his fmger while playing near the said escalator in the Ansal Plaza Building. In the FIR, it has been asserted by mother of the said minor child that nobody was present there to stop the escalator and the incident in question had taken place due to some fault in the automatic escalator.
CrI. M.C. No. 1286/2007 Page 1 2013:DHC:7155 At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had drawn the attention of this Court to petitioner's application (Annexure -D) seeking dropping of proceedings wherein it was specifically asserted that as per the Mechanical Inspection Report of the said escalator, it was found to be in proper working condition. Thus, it was asserted that there was no defect in the said escalator and there was no negligence in the maintenance of the said escalator andso, impugned orderrefusing to drop the proceedings against petitioner is bad in law.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, FIR of this case and the material on record, I find that petitioner's plea of the escalator in question being in working condition has not been considered by the trial court in the impugned order nor material aspect as to who was operating the escalator in question has been considered and so, the impugned order declining petitioner's application for dropping of proceedings is rendered unsustainable and is accordingly quashed with direction to the trial court to hear petitioner afresh and to pass a speaking and well reasoned order. Interim order of2A^ April, 2007 stands vacated.
Learned counsel for petitioner informs that the matter is now fixed for 18"' December, 2013 before the trial court. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on the date so fixed i.e. on 18"" December, 2013.
Copy ofthis order be sent to trial court for necessary compliance.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 19, 2013 r Crl. M.C. No. 1286/2007 2013:DHC:7155
19.11.2013 Vide impugned order of 1'8"' January, 2007 trial court has dismissed petitioner's application for dropping of proceedings qua petitioner in FIR No. 113/2003, under Sections 287/338 of the IPC, registered at police station Defence Colony, New Delhi.
Petitioner is the Regional Manager of Kinetic Escalator and
Elevator Ltd., Pune and he asserts that the maintenance of the escalator installed in the building was with M/S Ansal Mall Management and
Knight Frank India Pvt. Ltd..
The subject matter ofthis FIR relates to an incident of26"" March, 2003 regarding a child of two years injuring his fmger while playing near the said escalator in the Ansal Plaza Building. In the FIR, it has been asserted by mother of the said minor child that nobody was present there to stop the escalator and the incident in question had taken place due to some fault in the automatic escalator.
CrI. M.C. No. 1286/2007 Page 1 2013:DHC:7155 At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had drawn the attention of this Court to petitioner's application (Annexure -D) seeking dropping of proceedings wherein it was specifically asserted that as per the Mechanical Inspection Report of the said escalator, it was found to be in proper working condition. Thus, it was asserted that there was no defect in the said escalator and there was no negligence in the maintenance of the said escalator andso, impugned orderrefusing to drop the proceedings against petitioner is bad in law.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, FIR of this case and the material on record, I find that petitioner's plea of the escalator in question being in working condition has not been considered by the trial court in the impugned order nor material aspect as to who was operating the escalator in question has been considered and so, the impugned order declining petitioner's application for dropping of proceedings is rendered unsustainable and is accordingly quashed with direction to the trial court to hear petitioner afresh and to pass a speaking and well reasoned order. Interim order of2A^ April, 2007 stands vacated.
Learned counsel for petitioner informs that the matter is now fixed for 18"' December, 2013 before the trial court. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on the date so fixed i.e. on 18"" December, 2013.
Copy ofthis order be sent to trial court for necessary compliance.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 19, 2013 r Crl. M.C. No. 1286/2007 2013:DHC:7155
JUDGMENT