Delhi District Court
Mohammed Nadeem vs State (Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 30 May, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJENDER KUMAR SHASTRI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02: SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
IN RE: ID No.: 02406R0129592013
Criminal Revision No. 44/13
Mohammed Nadeem
S/o Mohammed Mustkeem
R/o T152, Churiya Mohalla,
Teh Khand Village
New Delhi ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) ..... Respondent
__________________________________________________________
Date of Institution : 22.05.2013
Date when the arguments were heard : 29.05.2013
Date of Judgment : 30.05.2013
J U D G M E N T
This is a criminal revision petition U/s 397/399 of The Code of Criminal Procedure directed against order dated 16.04.2013 passed by Ld. MM, New Delhi, in case FIR No. 125/12 PS Pul Prahlad Pur titled as State Vs. Mohd. Nadeem.
In case referred above, the petitioner has been served with a notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. by the Ld. MM having been satisfied CR No. 44/13 1 of 3 that a prima facie offence under Section 279/338 IPC was made out against him.
It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that even as per statement of complainant, on the basis of which FIR in this case was registered, he i.e. complainant was crossing the road simply by raising hand towards the incoming traffic. There is evidence that spot was a Zebracrossing. In such a circumstance even if he i.e. complainant was hit by the petitioner driving a motorcycle, it was complainant himself who was at fault and not the petitioner. As per Ld. Counsel, complainant should have been accused and not the petitioner. Explaining that Ld. MM had authority not to serve notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. even if the petitioner was summoned to face trial. Ld. Counsel attracted attention of this court towards Section 158 Cr.P.C. where the magistrate could stop proceedings if it was found that no offence was made out. Ld. Counsel relies upon a case titled as State of Maharashtra Vs. Ram Pandharinath Chidrawar 2007 Cri. L. J. 827.
Apart from hearing Ld. Counsels, I have gone through the record on file. If statement of complainant is taken as true at this stage, the latter was crossing road along with his younger brother Rajeev and one neighbour Ashutosh. He pointed out towards the coming traffic by raising hand. Rajeev and Ashutosh had already crossed that road and were on divider. While he was likely to reach the divider having crossed CR No. 44/13 2 of 3 one side of the road, in between the petitioner came there driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit him. He fell down on the road and suffered injury on right leg between ankle and knee.
If three persons were crossing a road and that by raising their hands to make the drivers aware about their movements on the road, moreover, two of them had already crossed the road while third (the complainant) was on the other edge of the road shows that they did not come on the road all of sudden. In such a circumstance, if the petitioner hit the complainant by his motorcycle, in my opinion, prima facie offence of rash and negligent driving is made out against the petitioner. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in serving notice upon the petitioner under Section 251 Cr.P.C. Petition in hands is thus dismissed.
Let trial court record be sent back along with a copy of this order. File of this court be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (RAJENDER KUMAR SHASTRI)
today i.e. 30th May 2013 ASJ02/SE/ SAKET COURT
NEW DELHI
CR No. 44/13 3 of 3