Court quashes chargesheet against hotel executives in negligence case, upholds appearance through advocate.

The Supreme Court quashed the chargesheet and summoning order against the Managing Director (Accused No. 2) and partially against the General Manager (Accused No. 4) in a case involving allegations of negligence by hotel management leading to a guest's injury. The Court emphasized the need to examine the allegations during trial, particularly against the General Manager. The High Court's decision allowing the accused to appear through an advocate was upheld. The Court clarified that its observations were specific to the appeals, and the trial court would determine the case's outcome based on the evidence presented.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the chargesheet and summoning order against the accused under Sections 336, 338 read with Section 32 of IPC and Section 4 of COTPA 2003.
2. Allegations of negligence and violation of license conditions by the hotel management.
3. Applicability of vicarious liability on the Managing Director and General Manager of the hotel.
4. Directions issued by the High Court allowing the accused to appear through an advocate.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Chargesheet and Summoning Order:
The appellants sought quashing of the chargesheet and summoning order dated 16.05.2015, which charged them under Sections 336, 338 read with Section 32 of IPC and Section 4 of COTPA 2003. The High Court declined to quash the FIR, stating that it was not appropriate to do so. The Supreme Court, however, quashed the proceedings against Accused No. 2 (Managing Director) and partially against Accused No. 4 (General Manager) for the alleged offence under Section 4 of COTPA 2003.

2. Allegations of Negligence and Violation of License Conditions:
The prosecution alleged that the hotel management allowed guests to access a dark and unsafe terrace, leading to the grievous injury of a guest. The chargesheet highlighted lapses in safety measures and violations of license conditions. The Supreme Court noted that these allegations need to be examined during the trial, particularly against the General Manager and other staff responsible for day-to-day operations.

3. Applicability of Vicarious Liability:
The Court examined the vicarious liability of the Managing Director and General Manager. It was held that an individual in a corporate entity can be prosecuted only if there is sufficient evidence of their active role coupled with criminal intent. The Court found no direct allegations of negligence with criminal intent against the Managing Director (Accused No. 2), thus quashing the proceedings against him. However, the General Manager (Accused No. 4) was found to have a different standing, as he was responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the hotel, and the allegations against him would be examined during the trial.

4. Directions Issued by the High Court:
The High Court allowed the accused to appear through an advocate, which was challenged by the complainant. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's directions, stating that such directions are within the High Court's power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Accused No. 2 (Managing Director), quashing the chargesheet and summoning order against him. The appeal of Accused No. 4 (General Manager) was partly allowed, quashing the chargesheet for the alleged offence under Section 4 of COTPA 2003 but maintaining the proceedings for other charges. The appeals filed by the complainant were dismissed, and the directions issued by the High Court allowing the accused to appear through an advocate were upheld. The Court clarified that the observations made are for the purpose of these appeals and the trial court is free to record its findings post-trial based on the merits of the case.

---