SUNEEL RAINSINGHANI Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 896/1995 and the order dated 5th september, 2007 dismissing the application seeking discharge on the ground that the material and documents on record if taken on their face value do not disclose the existence of ingredients constituting the offences alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner was employed in M/s Fibroplast as a supervisor, which company had offered to supply the motorboat meant for rescue and relief work. A number of boats were ordered and inspection of one of the boat was fixed on 3rd November, 1995 at the works of the boat company at F-3/4, Okhla industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi. However subsequently the venue of the pre-delivery inspection was shifted to river Yamuna. The petitioner along with the driver Chattu Singh reached the designated spot at 10. 30 AM on 3rd November, 1995. For the pre-delivery inspection there were 20 members, which was the capacity of the motorboat. During the said inspection the boat overturned. Those who knew swimming survived while 9 persons drowned. The driver of the boat, mr. Chattu Singh, was arrested by the police of Sriniwaspuri police station and an FIR was lodged against him, the petitioner and the boat company and challans were filed under Section 304a/34 IPC.

(2.) ALL the facts along with the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner were considered by the Metropolitan Magistrate and he came to the conclusion that there was ground for proceeding against the accused persons including the petitioner, and that the material and the documents on the record reveal facts which if taken on their face value disclose the existence of the ingredients constituting the alleged offence and therefore the application of the petitioner for discharge was dismissed.

(3.) THE petitioner"s responsibility included overseeing the production and making arrangements for delivery inspection of the boats at the time of pre-delivery. The driver Chattu Singh arranged by the company which capsized did not have any experience certificate and has allegedly shown negligence and ignorance regarding the safety of all the persons on boat. The petitioner was a supervisor and cannot absolve himself of his lapses.