Recently, the Delhi High Court upheld the framing of charges against bar and lounge owners for allegedly destroying evidence and failing to report missing minors, while addressing a revision petition challenging the trial court’s order. The Court observed that proprietors of such establishments have a responsibility to ensure legal compliance and cannot evade liability by claiming lack of direct involvement.
A complaint was lodged by the mother of a 13-year-old girl, alleging that her daughter had gone missing after leaving home with friends. Subsequent investigation revealed that the minor, along with another 10-year-old girl, had been frequenting various clubs and lounges where they were served alcohol and hookah. They also stayed at multiple locations, including residences arranged by acquaintances.
The police recovered the minors and initiated an investigation that uncovered a network of individuals facilitating their presence in clubs. Further inquiries revealed that several club owners had allegedly destroyed CCTV footage and failed to report the presence of minors on their premises.
The counsel for the petitioners argued that the trial court erred in framing charges against them, as criminal liability cannot be established through constructive liability alone. It was contended that one of the petitioners, a partner in Mixx Club & Lounge, had no involvement in its day-to-day operations, having delegated management to co-partners. Another petitioner, the owner of Moments Lounge, claimed he had leased out the establishment and was not actively managing the premises at the time of the alleged offenses. Therefore, they sought to have the charges quashed.
The Court examined the prosecution's evidence, noting that club owners had failed to produce CCTV footage and had allegedly deleted it to conceal illegal activities. The Court emphasized that the destruction of evidence and failure to report missing minors were serious offenses under various statutes, including the IPC, POCSO Act, Juvenile Justice Act, and Delhi Excise Act.
Referring to judicial precedents, the Court held that proprietors cannot escape liability solely by arguing non-involvement in daily operations, particularly when regulatory violations occur within their establishments. The Court observed, "The owners of such establishments have a legal duty to ensure that their premises are not used for illegal activities, and their failure to comply with legal obligations cannot absolve them of responsibility."
The High Court dismissed the revision petitions, affirming the trial court’s decision to frame charges. It held that prima facie evidence existed against the accused, warranting trial. The Court reiterated that bar and club owners must uphold legal obligations and cannot evade liability by claiming ignorance of operational details.
Picture Source :