Full Text
Translation output
L
$-30
*
-r
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' DELHT AT NE\4/ DELHI
CRL.M.C , 2628/2OLT
ANKUR AGGARWAL..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Arnit Khernka, Adv. with Ml. Rishi
Sehgal,Adv.
VETSUS
STATE..... Respondent
Through:Mr.Naveen Sharma, APP for State with
SI Vikas,PS Connaught Place
$-30
*
-r
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' DELHT AT NE\4/ DELHI
CRL.M.C , 2628/2OLT
ANKUR AGGARWAL..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Arnit Khernka, Adv. with Ml. Rishi
Sehgal,Adv.
VETSUS
STATE..... Respondent
Through:Mr.Naveen Sharma, APP for State with
SI Vikas,PS Connaught Place
CORAM:
HONIBLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
07.02.201s
By this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of Kalendla filed by the police vide DD No.22A under Section
28/IL2 of Delhi Police Act and consequent proceedings arising therefi'om.
Petitioner also seeks quashing of order dated I5.4.20I1 framing notice under section 251 Cr.P.C.
Arguing the present petition counsel for the petitioner subrnits that
Kalendra has been registered against the petitioner by the police for the offence alleged to have been cornmitted under Sectiqn 28/II2 of the Delhi
I
"h t
2013:DHC:6894 t that in the status report filed by the police before this court, the police has taken a stand that the petitioner had applied for renewal of licence for the period 2009-2010 on 3I.3.2009 and consequently the licence of the petitioner was renewed for a period of one year. The police has further taken a stand that the petitioner has also applied for renewal of licence for thd period 20II-L2. Counsel has pointed out to the stand taken by the police in
Status report dated 10.11.2011 and the stand taken by the Licencing
Inspector in the report of the licencing branch annexed with the status report whereby they have stated that the licencee has to apply for renewal of his licence after the expily of its validity by enclosrng certain documents including licence from the office of Municipal Health Department. Counsel submits that since the police has admitted the fact that the petitioner had applied for renewal of licence irunediately on the expiry of its licence and the said licence also stands renewed in favour of the petitioner, therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner had no li.."::._on the date of the reg:stration of DD. Counsel thus prays that Kalandara filed by the police vide DD No.22A under Section 28lII2 of Delhi Police Act and consequent proceedings arising therfi'orn be quashed. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of order dated I5.4.20I1 passed under section 251 Cr.P.C. t
I
07.02.201s
By this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of Kalendla filed by the police vide DD No.22A under Section
28/IL2 of Delhi Police Act and consequent proceedings arising therefi'om.
Petitioner also seeks quashing of order dated I5.4.20I1 framing notice under section 251 Cr.P.C.
Arguing the present petition counsel for the petitioner subrnits that
Kalendra has been registered against the petitioner by the police for the offence alleged to have been cornmitted under Sectiqn 28/II2 of the Delhi
I
"h t
2013:DHC:6894 t that in the status report filed by the police before this court, the police has taken a stand that the petitioner had applied for renewal of licence for the period 2009-2010 on 3I.3.2009 and consequently the licence of the petitioner was renewed for a period of one year. The police has further taken a stand that the petitioner has also applied for renewal of licence for thd period 20II-L2. Counsel has pointed out to the stand taken by the police in
Status report dated 10.11.2011 and the stand taken by the Licencing
Inspector in the report of the licencing branch annexed with the status report whereby they have stated that the licencee has to apply for renewal of his licence after the expily of its validity by enclosrng certain documents including licence from the office of Municipal Health Department. Counsel submits that since the police has admitted the fact that the petitioner had applied for renewal of licence irunediately on the expiry of its licence and the said licence also stands renewed in favour of the petitioner, therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner had no li.."::._on the date of the reg:stration of DD. Counsel thus prays that Kalandara filed by the police vide DD No.22A under Section 28lII2 of Delhi Police Act and consequent proceedings arising therfi'orn be quashed. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of order dated I5.4.20I1 passed under section 251 Cr.P.C. t
I
Police Act for running a restaurant under the narne of Hotel Blue at prenuses bearing number M-I26,Outer Circle,Connaught Place, New Delhi without a valid licence fi'orn the Licencing Deparlrnent of the Delhi Police. Counsel further submits that as per the case of the police one SI alongwith one
Constable had visited the said premises of the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to show his licence for running the said restaurantlhotel and when the petitioner produced the licence it was seem to be valid only iiii
3I.3.2009. The police then asked the petitioner to produce any document to show whether the petitioner had applied to seek renewal of the said licence and since the petitioner could not produce any document to show that steps were taken by him to seek renewal of the licence, the petitioner was challaned under Section 28/7L2 of Delhi Police Act and was released o! personal bond of Rs.2000/-. Later Kalendra was registered against the petitioner for committing an offence under Section 28lII2 of the Delhi
Police Act for nrnning a restaurant without licence. Counsel finther subrnits that the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated I5.4.20I1 had fi'arned notice against the petitioner under Section 251 Cr.P.C for cornrnitting the said offence under Section 2SlIl2 of Delhi Police Act. Assailing the said
Kalendla and the order framing notice, counsel for the petitioner subrnits t q t
Counsel for the State on the other hand submits that infact the petitioner should have obtained renewal before the expiry of the validity period and not thereafter. Counsel thus submits that as on the date of registration of the said DD the petitioner was not in possession of a valid licence.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and Ld.APP for the State.
Considering the fact that petitioner had applied for renewal of its licence on 31.3.2009 which was the last date of expiry of the previous licence and the stand taken by the police in its status report that as per practice thc licencee has to apply for renewal of his licence after the expiry of its existing validity, it cannot be said that there was no licence with the petitioner on the date of registration of D.D. report . This court is also of the view that grant of renewal in favour of the petitioner will certainly relate back to the period when the earlier licence of the petitioner came to an end'
Ihe State has also not disputed the fact that petitioner had applied for renewal of his licence for the period 2009-20t0 and the said licence was renewed on 31.3.2010. It is furthernot disputed thatthe licence of the petitioner has also been rener.ved for the period 20II-12'
Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts of the case, this court is t lo of the view that Kalandara filed by the police vide DD No.22A o"a"t
Section 28lIl2 of Delhi Police Act and consequent proceedings arising therefi'om and order dated 15.4.2011 passed under section 251 Cr.P.C. deserves quashing and the sarne are hereby quashed.
It is ordered accordingly.
A
| /tl tb!,-
KAILASI{ GAMBHIR. J c FEBRUARY 07,2013 o c
Constable had visited the said premises of the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to show his licence for running the said restaurantlhotel and when the petitioner produced the licence it was seem to be valid only iiii
3I.3.2009. The police then asked the petitioner to produce any document to show whether the petitioner had applied to seek renewal of the said licence and since the petitioner could not produce any document to show that steps were taken by him to seek renewal of the licence, the petitioner was challaned under Section 28/7L2 of Delhi Police Act and was released o! personal bond of Rs.2000/-. Later Kalendra was registered against the petitioner for committing an offence under Section 28lII2 of the Delhi
Police Act for nrnning a restaurant without licence. Counsel finther subrnits that the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated I5.4.20I1 had fi'arned notice against the petitioner under Section 251 Cr.P.C for cornrnitting the said offence under Section 2SlIl2 of Delhi Police Act. Assailing the said
Kalendla and the order framing notice, counsel for the petitioner subrnits t q t
Counsel for the State on the other hand submits that infact the petitioner should have obtained renewal before the expiry of the validity period and not thereafter. Counsel thus submits that as on the date of registration of the said DD the petitioner was not in possession of a valid licence.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and Ld.APP for the State.
Considering the fact that petitioner had applied for renewal of its licence on 31.3.2009 which was the last date of expiry of the previous licence and the stand taken by the police in its status report that as per practice thc licencee has to apply for renewal of his licence after the expiry of its existing validity, it cannot be said that there was no licence with the petitioner on the date of registration of D.D. report . This court is also of the view that grant of renewal in favour of the petitioner will certainly relate back to the period when the earlier licence of the petitioner came to an end'
Ihe State has also not disputed the fact that petitioner had applied for renewal of his licence for the period 2009-20t0 and the said licence was renewed on 31.3.2010. It is furthernot disputed thatthe licence of the petitioner has also been rener.ved for the period 20II-12'
Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts of the case, this court is t lo of the view that Kalandara filed by the police vide DD No.22A o"a"t
Section 28lIl2 of Delhi Police Act and consequent proceedings arising therefi'om and order dated 15.4.2011 passed under section 251 Cr.P.C. deserves quashing and the sarne are hereby quashed.
It is ordered accordingly.
A
| /tl tb!,-
KAILASI{ GAMBHIR. J c FEBRUARY 07,2013 o c
JUDGMENT