Full Text
Translation output
$-23 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 956/2013 & Crl.M.A.No. 3018/2013 (stay)
SAGIR AHMED
Petitioner
Through: Mr.SudarshanRajan and Mr.Mohd. Amar, Advocates
CRL.M.C. 956/2013 & Crl.M.A.No. 3018/2013 (stay)
SAGIR AHMED
Petitioner
Through: Mr.SudarshanRajan and Mr.Mohd. Amar, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI
Respondent
Through: Mr. SunilSharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with
Sub-Inspector RamNiwas, Police Station Chandni Mahal, Delhi
Respondent
Through: Mr. SunilSharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with
Sub-Inspector RamNiwas, Police Station Chandni Mahal, Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
08.03.2013 Petitioner claims to be the Manager ofDhaba which is found to be operating without a licence and is facing prosecution in a
Kalandra DD N0.68B under Section 28/112, of Delhi Police Act, 1978.
In the instant petition, quashing of aforesaid kalandara is sought on the ground that the instant proceedings against a manager of such eating house is not maintainable. Reliance is placed upon decision of a coordinate bench of this Court in Janak
Raj vs. State NCTofDelhi, 2012 (6) AD (Del) 644.
Crl. M.C.No. 956/2013 Page 1 2013:DHC:7934 Learned counsel for petitioner draws attention of this Court to trial court's order of 26^ November, 2009 (Annexure P-3) wherein on behalf of respondent —State it has been stated that mother ofthe petitioner is owner oftheDhabain question.
In view of the aforesaid, continuance of proceedings in question arising out ofKalandra DD N0.68B imder Section 28/112, of Delhi Police Act, 1978 against petitioner is apparently unsustainable qua petitioner and these proceedings against him are quashed. However, respondent - State is at liberty to continue the proceedings arising out of Kalandra DD N0.68B under Section
28/112, of Delhi Police Act, 1978 against owner of the Dhaba in question.
With aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge MARCH 08, 2013 pkb Crl. M.C.No. 956/2013 Page2
2013:DHC:7934
08.03.2013 Petitioner claims to be the Manager ofDhaba which is found to be operating without a licence and is facing prosecution in a
Kalandra DD N0.68B under Section 28/112, of Delhi Police Act, 1978.
In the instant petition, quashing of aforesaid kalandara is sought on the ground that the instant proceedings against a manager of such eating house is not maintainable. Reliance is placed upon decision of a coordinate bench of this Court in Janak
Raj vs. State NCTofDelhi, 2012 (6) AD (Del) 644.
Crl. M.C.No. 956/2013 Page 1 2013:DHC:7934 Learned counsel for petitioner draws attention of this Court to trial court's order of 26^ November, 2009 (Annexure P-3) wherein on behalf of respondent —State it has been stated that mother ofthe petitioner is owner oftheDhabain question.
In view of the aforesaid, continuance of proceedings in question arising out ofKalandra DD N0.68B imder Section 28/112, of Delhi Police Act, 1978 against petitioner is apparently unsustainable qua petitioner and these proceedings against him are quashed. However, respondent - State is at liberty to continue the proceedings arising out of Kalandra DD N0.68B under Section
28/112, of Delhi Police Act, 1978 against owner of the Dhaba in question.
With aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge MARCH 08, 2013 pkb Crl. M.C.No. 956/2013 Page2
2013:DHC:7934
JUDGMENT