Delhi District Court
Asj/Special Judge-Ndps/South ... vs State on 18 May, 2016
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI A.K.KUHAR
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE-NDPS/SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Crl. Rev. No. 12/16
Taiyab Zia Ahmed
R/o 606, Janki Apartment,
Flat No. 7, Sector-22, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110077.
....Petitioner/
Revisionist
VERSUS
State
..... Respondent
Computer ID No. : 02406R0189762016
Date of institution : 13.05.2016
Date of arguments : 18.05.2016
Date of order : 18.05.2016
AND
Crl. Rev. No. 08/16
Taiyab Zia Ahmed
R/o 606, Janki Apartment,
Flat No. 7, Sector-22, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110077.
....Petitioner/
Revisionist
VERSUS
State
..... Respondent
Computer ID No. : 02406R0157592016
Date of institution : 25.04.2016
Date of arguments : 18.05.2016
Date of order : 18.05.2016
ORDER
1. By this order I shall dispose of two criminal revision petitions. The criminal revision petition no. 08/16, under section CR No.12/16 Taiyab Zia Ahmad vs. State 2 397 Cr.P.C. has been filed against order dated 02.02.2016, whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has amended the Notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. by adding section 338 IPC in the Notice and the criminal revision petition no. 12/16, wherein the petitioner has impugned the order dated 29.10.2014 whereby a Notice was served upon the revision for the offence under section 279/337 IPC.
2. The criminal revision petition no. 08/16 was listed today for arguments and criminal revision petition no. 12/16 was today listed for consideration. Since both the revision petitions have been filed by the same accused in FIR No. 154/14, PS-Hauz Khas, and basically challenge the same order of service of Notice upon him. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor accepted the Notice of criminal revision no. 08/16. Thereafter, I have heard the arguments in both the revision petition.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist has been wrongly served with a Notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. for the commission of offence under sec5tion 279/337/338 IPC. His argument is that no case of rash and negligent driving or act was made out against the applicant. To understand the submissions of learned counsel, it is necessary to got through the complaint of Vijay Shekhar Singh, which has led to the registration of FIR.
4. It is stated in the complaint that on 09.02.2014 at around 12:30 am, the complainant was driving his car Optra Chevrolet no. UP14Z8483 and was coming from Vasant Kunj and was driving on August Kranti Marg. When he reached at the Shahpur Jat red light, one Scorpio car no. DL 3CBN 0383 came from the side of Hauz Khas being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner and he suddenly stopped the vehicle in the middle of the road, as a result the complainant's car hit the Scorpio car of the accused and also hit the divider, as a result of this CR No.12/16 Taiyab Zia Ahmad vs. State 3 collision, the face of Scorpio car turned towards Hauz Khas. The complainant received injury and the driver of the car of Scorpio car also received injury. On the basis of this statement, the FIR was registered and the investigation was conducted.
5. The learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that Centre for Forensics Science Laboratory (CFSL), CBI had conducted crime scene inspection on the request of SHO of PS-Hauz Khas and submitted the report. As per the report, the collision had occurred when both the vehicle were approaching the centre of the intersection. It also opined that the Optra car was at higher speed as compared to the Scorpio car. The learned counsel for the revisionist has placed heavy reliance on this report and submitted that this report has not been considered. He also argued that as per the MLC, the complainant was under the influence of liquor whereas the accused was not. He submitted that the manner in which the accident took place established that the revisionist was not at fault.
6. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on the other hand has submitted that which of the vehicle was at fault, is a question of fact, which needs a trial. Prima facie the allegations against the accused make out a case under section 269/337/338 IPC against the accused. It is submitted further that simply because complainant was under influence of liquor will not ipso facto make his driving rash and negligent. It is submitted that the revisionist has been served with a Notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. as per law and there is no illegality in the order.
7. I have gone through the order dated 29.10.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate wherein he has considered the written arguments of the defence counsel and passed the order after going through the record. He has also referred to the fact that the complainant was under the influence or liquor. He has referred CR No.12/16 Taiyab Zia Ahmad vs. State 4 to the allegations in the complaint that the accused was driving the vehicle at fast speed and had stopped suddenly on the road, due to which his car struck against the car of the complainant and also hit the divider. Later on the MLC of one Shanraj and his statement under section 161 Cr.P was placed on record, pursuant to which the Notice was amended by adding a section 338 IPC in the same. The amendment of Notice was conceded by the learned counsel for the accused and therefore, necessary amendment was made.
8. The offences alleged against the accused are summon triable offence. Section 251 Cr.P.C. provide that when an accused appears before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused, shall be stated to him. Procedure for summon triable cases is given in Chapter XX of the Cr.P.C. which does not speak about the discharge of an accused except under section 258 Cr.P.C. Magistrate can stop the proceeding in a police case by recording the reasons. Although there is no specific guidelines in section 258 Cr.P.C. as to in which circumstance, the proceedings can be stopped. This power of stopping the proceedings as per section 258 Cr.P.C. is provided in the Chapter XX dealing with summon triable cases. The Magistrate can stop the proceedings at any stage and that stage could also be while serving the Notice under section 251 Cr.P.C.
9. The question, however, is whether it was a case where a Magistrate should not have proceeded with the trial, the answer is in negative. The general principle of law would remain the same that if a prima facie case is made out, the trial has to proceed after charging the accused. The statement of the complainant in the present case may be false but it is not the stage to conclude that it is a false statement unless this witness comes in the witness box. The report of CFSL can be appreciated only in the light of the eye witness account of the accident, which can come on the record only CR No.12/16 Taiyab Zia Ahmad vs. State 5 after a witness examined. In my considered view, the impugned order of framing of Notice under section 279/337 IPC on 29.10.2014 and later order dated 02.02.2016, which amending the same by adding section 338 IPC as well do not suffer from any illegality, irregularity and impropriety. Hence, both the revision petitions stand dismissed. Copy of order be placed in both the files.
10. Trial Court Record (TCR) be sent back with a copy of this order.
11. The criminal revision file be consigned to Record Room Announced in the open Court on 18th May, 2016 (Ajay Kumar Kuhar) Special Judge (NDPS) South District: Saket CR No.12/16 Taiyab Zia Ahmad vs. State