Delhi High Court
Manoj Madhwan vs State Nct Of Delhi on 29 April, 2014
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 29th April, 2014
+ CRL.M.C. 2124/2013
MANOJ MADHWAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rajesh Kumar & Mr.Saurabh Kamal,
Advs.
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, the petitioner Manoj Madhwan seeks quashing of
order dated 02.06.2011 in case FIR No.40/2010 registered at PS
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for
the State.
3. The facts of the case as borne out from the charge-sheet are that
complainant Sanjeev Kumar Jain made a statement that on
09.02.2010, he along with his family members was going in his car
bearing registration No.DL-9CD-7154. At about 4.30 p.m. vehicle
No.DL-2CH-0313 which was being driven in a rash and negligent
manner, hit his vehicle and as a result damage was caused to his
vehicle. He also stated that another vehicle bearing registration
No.DL-2CAH-8628 which was in front of his car was also got hit by
his car. However, no injury was caused to any person. SI Virender
Pakhare lodged the complaint and got the FIR registered. During
investigation, driver of the offending vehicle Sarvan Singh was
arrested and copy of driving licence, RC and insurance were seized.
All the three vehicles were seized and mechanical inspection was
done. The vehicle was released on superdari. The registration
certificate of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL-2CH-
0313 was in the name of M/s. Living Media India Ltd. Company. The
said company, vide resolution dated 08.09.2009 authorized Mr.Arun
Punia, Mr.Anil Mishra and Mr.Manoj Madhwan to prosecute, defend,
compromise, withdraw, abandon etc. the legal proceedings.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the offence
under Section 279 IPC read with Section 3/180 and 5/181 of the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was filed against accused Sarvan Kumar.
The name of petitioner Manoj Wadhwan was kept in Column 12 of
the charge-sheet.
5. On 02.06.2011, accused Sarvan Kumar pleaded guilty and prayed
for lenient view. On the said plea accused/Sarvan Kumar was
convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one
thousand) for the offence under Section 279 IPC and fine of Rs.500/-
(Rupees five hundred) for the offence under Section 3/180 of the
Motor Vehicles Act and the petitioner was summoned.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not
the owner of the vehicle bearing No.DL-2CH-0313. The petitioner is
employed as Legal Manager in M/s. Living Media India Ltd.
Company and has not authorised any person to drive the said vehicle.
Therefore, he submits that he is not liable to be punished for the
offence under Section 5/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He also urges
that the petitioner took the said vehicle on superdari in the capacity of
Legal Manager of the said company and not as the owner.
7. Learned APP for the State has not disputed that the registered
owner of the offending vehicle bearing No.DL-2CH-0313 is M/s.
Living Media India Limited Company and the petitioner is an
employee of the said company.
8. Section 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:-
"5. Responsibility of owners of motor vehicles
for contravention of sections 3 and 4 - No
owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle
shall cause or permit any person who does not
satisfy the provisions of section 3 or section 4 to
drive the vehicle."
9. On perusal of Section 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is
manifestly clear that owner of a vehicle shall cause or permit any
person who does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 or 4 of the Act
to drive the vehicle.
10 In the instant case, from the charge-sheet and the submissions
made by learned APP for the State, it is clear that the petitioner is not
registered owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL-
2CH-0313.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed
and impugned order dated 02.06.2011 passed by learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, Saket Courts is set aside to the extent that the petitioner is
summoned. However, it is made clear that the trial Court is at liberty
to proceed against the registered owner of the vehicle bearing
registration No. DL-2CH-0313 in accordance with law.
12. The petition is disposed of.
Crl.M.A. No.8271/2013
The application is dismissed as infructuous.
(VED PRAKASH VAISH)
JUDGE
APRIL 29, 2014/gm
