Delhi District Court
State vs Manish Talreja on 24 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR.YADVENDER SINGH,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, WEST,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-007048-2022
Sessions Case No. 495/2022
FIR No. 634/2013
PS Punjabi Bagh
Under Section 323/354/366/506/511 IPC
State
Vs.
Manish Talreja
S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal Talreja,
R/o H.No. 26/78, West Punjabi Bagh,
Delhi.
Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 1 of 38
State v. Manish Talreja
Date of Institution 08.04.2016
Date of Committal 23.07.2022
Charge framed Under Section 323/354 IPC, 366 IPC r/w
Section 511 IPC and section
506 (Part-II) IPC against the
accused.
Date of conclusion of final 11.02.2026
arguments and reserving Judgment
Date of Pronouncement of 24.03.2026
Judgment
Final Judgment Accused Manish Talreja is
acquitted of the charges.
Index
1. Brief facts : Page No. 3-4
2. Registration of FIR,
statement of the complainant
and investigation conducted : Page No. 4-8
3. Charge : Page No. 8
4. Documents admitted by the
accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C. : Page No. 9
5. Prosecution Evidence : Page No. 9-12
Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 2 of 38
State v. Manish Talreja
6. Statement of accused
persons u/s 351 BNSS : Page No. 13-14
7. Final arguments : Page No. 14
8. Appreciation of evidence
and Analysis of deposition
of witnesses : Page No. 14-35
9. Conclusion : Page No. 35-36
10. Specimen Chart of witnesses
examined : Page No. 37
11. Specimen Chart for exhibited
documents : Page No. 37-38
12. Specimen Chart for material
objects/Muddamals : Page No. 38
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts:
1. Accused Manish Talreja has been facing trial for Charge under Sections 323 IPC, 354 IPC, 366 IPC r/w section 511 IPC and 506 (Part-II) Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') on Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 3 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja the allegations that on 04.11.2011 at about 06:10 PM, in front of H.No. C-17, North West Avenue, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, accused Manish Talreja pushed the son of complainant; assaulted or used criminal force to the complainant/victim by holding her hand and giving fist blow on her chest with the intention to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty;
attempted to push the complainant/victim inside his silver colour Innova car in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse and also extended threats to the complainant and her son to cause the death of the son and to teach a lesson to the complainant.
Registration of FIR, statement of the complainant and investigation conducted:
2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant/victim made a complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned Court against the accused Manish Talreja upon which, the then Ld. MM-01 directed to lodge the case against the accused Manish Talreaj vide order dated 11.12.2013. The complainant stated in her complaint before Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 4 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja then concerned Ld. MM that she was 47 years old and residing alongwith her husband and two children i.e. one son and one daughter at H.No. 17 NWA, Club Road, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi at the first floor in the said premises for the past more than 23 years. The complainant was suffering from acute backache problem and was unable to stand for a long period. Husband of the complainant was a chronic heart patient and suffered a major heart attack in the year of 2004 and had been diagnosed with blockage to his heart arteries to the extent of 90% and was also suffering from acute sciatica and spondylitis. She further stated that the accused and some other accused persons had quarreled with the complainant and her family members, brother and nephew and caused injuries to them and they were medico legally examined. The complainant reported the matter to PS Punjabi Bagh, Delhi but police did not lodge any FIR.
Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and then the present case was registered against the accused and his other associates.
3. The complainant had further stated in her abovesaid complaint that her mother-in-law was owner of H.No. C-17, North Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 5 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja West Avenue, Punjabi Bagh. The brother-in-law of the complainant namely Mahadev Sharma had illegally sold the said property to Sushil Malhotra, Sunita Malhotra, Aashita Talreja and Vashu Miglani and regarding the alleged sale of property, a petition bearing no. CS(OS) 890/2010 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the stay order was passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the same was continued till the date of said complaint. She further stated that the complainant had affixed a notice for general public on the house regarding stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at about 04:30 PM on 04.11.2011. At about 06:10 PM, the complainant alongwith her son Janmay Jai was returning from market and at that time, the complainant had seen that Manish Talreja, who was son-in-law of Sushil Malhotra was removing the notice board with a sharp edged weapon. The complainant requested him not to remove the notice from the wall, then he pushed the son of complainant and gave filthy abuses to him and threatened him to kill. When the complainant objected him then he caught hold the hand of complainant and gave a fist blow on the chest of the complainant and tried to push her inside his silver Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 6 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja colour Innova Car. The accused was saying that he would teach a lesson to her (complainant) for lodging an FIR against them. The complainant hardly saved herself from the clutches of accused persons. The accused persons threatened the complainant if she did not withdraw her complaint, then they would kill her and whole family and no one could do anything against them.
4. On the complaint of the complainant, the directions were passed by the then Ld. MM to register the case against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 323, 354, 342, 366, 506 & 511 IPC and to investigate the case. During investigation, site plan was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded.
5. During investigation, search was made to arrest the accused but he could not be traced. Thereafter, on 17.01.2014, an application for anticipatory bail was moved before the concerned Court by the accused and he was granted anticipatory bail. Thereafter, efforts were made to contact the accused by the police officials but they could not succeed.
6. On 11.01.2016, accused Manish Talreja came to the PS and joined the investigation, wherein he made disclosure statement and Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 7 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja confessed his involvement in the present case. He was formally arrested in the present case. During investigation, statement of complainant u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she had reiterated her allegations as per her complaint against the accused. Since the allegations for the offence punishable u/s 342 IPC were not made hence, the section 342 IPC was removed from the present FIR. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for the offence u/s 323/354/366/506/511 IPC against the accused Manish Talreaj before the concerned Court and it was duly committed to this Court.
Charge:
7. On 18.11.2022, Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 323 IPC, 354 IPC, 366 IPC r/w section 511 IPC and 506 (Part-II) IPC was framed against accused Manish Talreja by the Ld. Predecessor, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 8 of 38State v. Manish Talreja Documents admitted by the accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
8. On the abovesaid date i.e. 18.11.2022, the accused had also admitted the documents u/s 294 Cr.P.C. i.e. (1) Proceedings/statement of victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. by the then Ld. MM as Ex.P.1; (2) Factum of registration of present FIR and its certificate as Ex. P.2 and Ex. P.3 and (3) factum of recording of DD entry no. 65B dated 04.11.2011 as Ex. P.4, before the Court and accordingly, the witnesses listed at srl. Nos.3,6 & 7 were directed to be deleted from the list of witnesses.
The Trial Prosecution evidence:
9. To prove its case against the accused persons, the prosecution had examined 03 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3. The relevant portion of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is reproduced hereinafter.
10. PW-1 Smt. 'J'/complainant has deposed that on 04.11.2011, she pasted a notice of stay of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on the gate of her house and at about 4.30 PM, she alongwith her son went to market and when they came back at about 6.15 PM, she saw that Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 9 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja accused Manish was removing the abovesaid notice with some pointed object and when she objected to the same, accused Manish pushed her son and threatened to kill him and thereafter, twisted her right hand and hit on her chest and dragged her inside the Innova Car, Silver Colour. He was also threatening that "तुम मुझे जानती नहीं हो police or Court को मैं अपनी pocket में रखता हूँ, तू अपनी पहले वाली पिटाई भूल गई है क्या, तू अपनी पहले वाली FIR वापिस ले ले". Accused Manish also threatened for withdrawing earlier FIR registered against him. He threatened her to kill all the other family members of her family in case of non withdrawal of the FIR. Thereafter, he ran away from the spot in his car. Thereafter, she gave her complaint to the PS, however, FIR was registered by the order of the Court on her complaint, exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. Her statement was also recorded in the Court before the Judge. She has also identified her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC, exhibited as Ex.PW-1/B from the record. She has also correctly identified the accused Manish Talreja before the Court.
11. PW-2 Sh. Janamejaya, son of the complainant deposed that on 04.11.2011, he was returning from market with his mother and when Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 10 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja they reached at their house at C-17, NWA Club Road, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, at about 6.10 PM, he saw that accused Manish Talreja was present there. One notice of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi regarding stay order was also affixed on the main door of their abovesaid house. The notice was affixed by them at 4.30 PM. Accused Manish Talreja had torn the notice in their presence and when accused was objected by him and his mother, accused pushed him. Thereafter, he threatened him while using the words " साले तेरे को जान से मार दँगू ा". When his mother tried to intervene, accused hit on the chest of his mother and tried to drag her in his Silver Colour Innova Car. He also threatened his mother that he would kill her and his family members. He also threatened by saying that did you forget the previous beating. He also asked to withdraw the previous criminal complaint against him by saying that "अपनी पहले वाली FIR वापिस ले ले वरना पूरे परिवार को जान से मार दँगू ा". Accused also hold the hand of his mother. PW-2 had also correctly identified the accused before the Court.
12. PW-3 SI Raj Kumar, retired Investigating Officer had deposed about all the investigation conducted by him in the present case. He Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 11 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja further deposed that on 18.11.2015, the investigation of the present matter by the orders of the then SHO was marked to him from SI Sandeep Bishnoi. He perused the case file and visited the house of complainant and served notice u/s 160 Cr.PC with the request to join the investigation. At the house of the complainant, he met her son, who was the eye witness of the matter and thereafter, he recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. Thereafter, he moved an application for recording of the statement of complainant before the Court u/s 164 Cr.PC., exhibited as Ex.PW-3/A. Thereafter, her statement was recorded by Ld. MM u/s 164 Cr.PC., exhibited as Ex.PW-1/B. He also served notice u/s 160 Cr.PC to accused Manish Talreja. Accused presented himself on 11.01.2016 at PS Punjabi Bagh. Thereafter, accused was formally arrested vide arrest memo, exhibited as Ex.PW3/B. Accused was released on bail and his disclosure statement, Ex.PW-3/C was recorded. He further deposed that after completion of investigation, he prepared the challan and filed the same before the Court. PW-3 had also correctly identified the accused before the Court.
Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 12 of 38State v. Manish Talreja Statement of accused Under Section 351 of BNSS :
13. Statement of accused Manish Talreja under section 351 of BNSS was recorded on 08.01.2026, wherein all the incriminating material on record was put to him, however, he denied the same and deposed that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case just to solve these kind of cases. He had further deposed that the present case was lodged at the instance of husband and son of the complainant in order to mount pressure on the Malhotra family to settle the civil disputes. He had been falsely implicated in the present case to coerce the Malhotra family to follow the terms and conditions of the complainant and her husband. No such incident had taken place. Further, due to the constraint pressure made by the complainant and her husband, Malhotra family succumbed to the pressure and entered into a settlement. Further, since the complainant and her family wanted a separate sum of Rs.25 lakhs from him, that is why, the present case was not withdrawn or quashed despite the execution of a settlement. He was innocent and had done nothing wrong with the complainant or her Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 13 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja son. However, the accused did not wish to lead evidence in his defence.
Final Arguments:
14. The Court has heard the final arguments as advanced by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for accused. The Court has also gone through the entire material available on record.
Appreciation of Evidence and Analysis of deposition of witnesses :
15. In the present case, the complainant/Smt. 'J' was examined as PW-1. There are many contradictions in her statement/deposition, which are to be discussed as under :
(I) In her complaint Ex.PW-1/A, the complainant stated that when the complainant objected Manish Talreja, then he caught hold the hand of complainant and gave a fist blow on the chest of complainant and tried to push her inside his silver colour Innova Car.
During her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, she stated that when she objected then he Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 14 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja (accused Manish Talreja) caught hold her hand and gave a push on her chest and then dragged her in order to sit her inside his silver colour Innova Car.
However, during her deposition as PW-1 before the Court, she deposed that accused Manish twisted her hand and hit on her chest and dragged her inside the silver colour Innova Car.
These statements of the complainant at different times before police, Ld. MM and during trial in this case are contradictory to each other. On the one hand, during her deposition as PW-1, she deposed that accused twisted her right hand, however, in her complaint and statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., it has been stated that accused had caught hold her hand. There is a clear difference between holding hand and twisting hand. She has deposed as PW-1 that her right hand was twisted, however, in her abovestated remaining statements, there is no mentioning of the right hand.
Again there is contradiction regarding the manner in which accused touched her chest. As PW-1 she deposed that accused hit on her chest. However, in her complaint, she stated that accused gave a fist blow on her chest but in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 15 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja she gave an altogether different version by stating that accused gave a push on her chest.
(II) There is also contradiction regarding her allegations pertaining to her abduction by the accused. During her deposition as PW-1, she deposed that accused dragged her inside the Silver colour Innova Car. It means that the act of abduction was complete. However, in her complaint Ex.PW-1/A, she has alleged that the accused tried to push her inside his silver colour Innova Car. In her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that accused dragged her in order to sit her inside the silver colour Innova Car. Accordingly, as per her complainant and statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., the act of abduction was not complete and it was merely an attempt.
In her complainant Ex.PW-1/A, the complainant has stated that the accused persons had threatened the complainant that if she did not withdraw her complaint then they would kill her whole family and no one could do anything against them. However, during her deposition as PW-1, she deposed that accused said that तुम मुझे जानती नहीं हो police or Court को मैं अपनी pocket में रखता हूँ, तू अपनी पहले वाली पिटाई भूल गई है क्या, तू अपनी पहले वाली FIR वापिस ले ले. She Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 16 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja has stated similar facts regarding the threat in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the abovesaid contradictions in her complaint and her deposition as PW-1 are material contradictions and goes roots of the prosecution case.
(III) As per prosecution story, the alleged offences were committed by the accused against complainant and her son, when the complainant and her son objected the accused on removing one notice of stay of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi from the gate of complainant's house on 04.11.2011. However, neither the notice itself nor the torn notice if any nor any photograph of the notice or torn notice, which was tried to be removed by the accused as above stated was seized by the IO or produced by any of the prosecution witnesses before the Court during trial. This is not a case of the prosecution that the said notice/torn notice was taken away by the accused from the spot rather as per answer given by complainant's son/PW-2 during his cross-examination, the abovesaid notice remained lying on the spot in torn condition.
Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 17 of 38State v. Manish Talreja The complainant during her cross-examination as PW-1 answered that IO never inquired from her about the notice. The IO during his cross-examination as PW-3 answered that he did not find any torn notice seized by the previous IO in the file during his perusal of the same. He further answered that the complainant did not provide him any such torn notice.
When the bone of contention was removing of notice by the accused and allegedly it was torn by the accused and it was also lying on the ground then non production of the said notice/paper during trial is a serious lapse on the part of IO. (IV) During her cross-examination, the complainant answered as PW-1 that she gave her complaint on the date of incident, however, the FIR was registered on Court's order. However, the said complaint made on the date of incident was never produced by the prosecution during trial. The complaint Ex.PW-1/A is application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant before the Court while seeking directions to PS Punjabi Bagh for investigation and registration of the FIR against the accused. The rukka was prepared on this complaint, however, the original complaint was also never Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 18 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja produced before this Court and complaint Ex. PW-1/A is merely a photocopy. This is also a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution.
(V) It is a case of the prosecution that the accused was dragging the complainant inside his silver colour Innova Car however, neither the vehicle was seized and produced by the IO nor registration number details of the vehicle in question were disclosed by the prosecution. Moreover, during her cross-examination, the complainant/PW-1 answered that she never provided registration number of the said car to the IO as she did not notice the registration number.
The complainant's son PW-2 also answered during his cross- examination that he could not tell the registration number of the said car or to tell about the owner of the said car. Non production of the vehicle in question or non furnishing the registration number of the vehicle is also a serious lapse in the prosecution's story. (VI) During her cross-examination, PW-1 answered that her husband must have made the PCR call, however, she did not remember the date and time of making the PCR call by her husband.
Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 19 of 38State v. Manish Talreja However, during his cross-examination, the IO/PW-3 answered that as per his investigation, no PCR call was made at the time of incident. Even if the complainant's version regarding PCR call by her husband is considered to be correct, then also non production of any GD entry/DD entry regarding PCR call or non examination of complainant's husband regarding the PCR call is a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution.
(VII) PW-1 during her cross-examination answered that the incident lasted for around 05 minutes and they had made hue & cry during that period but nobody from her house or from the neighbouring house came out at that time as she could not cry in high voice. Complainant's son PW-2 also answered during his cross- examination that he and his mother made a hue & cry in order to save them from the clutches of the accused, however, none came forward to save them as in front of the spot, there was a busy road having running vehicle with loud noise. But he also admitted the suggestion that at the time of incident, there was commercial market also having eating points in front of the spot. He also answered that at the time of incident, he and his mother were using mobile phone, Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 20 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja however, none of them made PCR call from their mobile phones at that time or made any video of the incident or clicked the photographs. The IO during his cross-examination as PW-3 answered that the spot of incident was a main market having shops mainly restaurants and it was heavily crowded by the presence of public persons including the shopkeepers. He further answered that he had not served any notice to any of the shopkeeper to provide any CCTV footage or to join the investigation. It is very hard to believe that when such a serious incident of attempt of abduction alongwith other alleged offences was committed in busy hours of the date of incident at a crowded public place, then also, no public person came at the spot to intervene or to witness the incident. In these circumstances, when victims neither made any PCR call despite having mobile phones with them at the time of incident nor made any video of the incident nor clicked any photographs of the same nor the IO made any efforts to secure CCTV footage of the incident and to inquire about the incident from the shopkeepers having shops in front of the spot, it is very hard to believe the veracity of prosecution story specially in light of abovesaid material Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 21 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja contradictions in the statements of material witnesses of the prosecution.
(VIII) Accused has been charged for the offence u/s 323 IPC for causing simple hurt to the son of the complainant. However, no cogent evidence was led by the prosecution to prove the charge for causing simple hurt. PW-1 answered during her cross-examination that she and her son had not received any injury on that day. She further answered that she and her son never went to any doctor for treatment qua this incident. She further voluntarily answered that it was simple man handling by the accused and no cloth of her as well as her son were torn even slightly during the man handling. The complainant's son/PW-2 also answered during his cross- examination that he did not receive any injury during the incident. He further answered that no cloth was torn or unbutton and same was his answer qua his mother. Perusal of the record shows that no MLC showing any medical examination of the victim or any other medical document showing injury to the victim was also filed by the IO or was led by the prosecution during the trial.
Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 22 of 38State v. Manish Talreja Section 323 IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
Section 321 IPC defines voluntarily causing hurt by providing that whoever does any act with the intention thereby causing hurt to any person or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person and does thereby cause hurt to any person is said voluntarily to cause hurt.
However, before proving the offence of voluntarily causing hurt, prosecution needs to prove hurt caused by the accused. Section 319 IPC defines hurt. This section provides that whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
None of the prosecution witness deposed that the victim received bodily pain, disease or infirmity due to the alleged act of accused. Rather, PW-1 as well as PW-2 both clearly answered during their cross-examinations that both of them did not receive any injury on that day.
Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 23 of 38State v. Manish Talreja In view of the abovesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that no offence u/s 323 IPC is made out against the accused and he is liable to be acquitted for the charge under section 323 IPC. (IX) The accused is further charged for the offence punishable u/s 354 IPC while holding complaint's hand and giving fist blow on her chest with the intention to outrage for knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty. However, during the examination- in-chief of the complainant, she deposed that the accused twisted her right hand and hit on her chest. Even it was no where deposed by the prosecution witnesses that the predominent motive of the accused was to outrage her modesty.
Ld. Counsel for the accused during final arguments relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in case titled as Mithlesh Kumar Saw & others v. The State of Jharkhand 1, in support of his contentions that for offence u/s 354 IPC, intention to outrage the modesty of a women is the fundamental ingredient. The Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in this case has observed as under :
1. Mithlesh Kumar Saw & others v. The State of Jharkhand in Crl.Appeal (SJ) No.289 of 2012 Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 24 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja "For offence under Section 354 IPC, intention to outrage modesty of a woman, is the fundamental ingredient. Touch caused otherwise during the course of a fight, between two warring section cannot be called an act to outrage the modesty. If in a free fight wearing apparels are torn, it will not invariably make out an offence under this Section. On a combined reading of testimony of the witnesses, it is apparent that out of 7 accused persons, four were females and the predominant motive was free fight and not to outrage the modesty. The evidence on record does not make out offence under Section 354 IPC.
In the present case also, prosecution miserably failed to prove the intention of the accused to outrage the modesty of the complainant in view of the abovesaid discussion and the evidence on record also does not make out an offence u/s 354 IPC against the accused. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the charge for the offence punishable u/s 354 IPC has not been proved against the accused in the present case.Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 25 of 38
State v. Manish Talreja (X) Accused was also charged for the offence punishable u/s 366 IPC r/w Section 511 IPC for his alleged attempt to push the complainant Ms.'J' inside his silver colour Innova Car in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.
However, any of the prosecution witnesses did not utter even a single word regarding the motive/intention behind the alleged attempt of abduction.
It is quite interesting that on one side the accused was charged for the offence of attempt for abduction with abovesaid intention, however, on the other hand, the complainant/PW-1 deposed during her examination-in-chief that accused dragged her inside the Innova Car. However, it was the complainant's own version in her complaint Ex.PW-1/A that the accused tried to push her inside the silver colour Innova Car. Even during her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. also, she did not mention that the act of abduction was complete. This change of version of the complainant during her examination- in-chief was also never explained by any of the prosecution witnesses. It need not to be mentioned that there is a difference of Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 26 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja day and night between an attempt and a complete commission of offence. Moreover, apart from these simple five words i.e. "dragged me inside the Innova Car" by PW-1 during her examination-in- chief, nothing was deposed by any of the prosecution witnesses regarding motive or intention of the accused for such dragging the complainant inside the car.
Ld. Counsel for the accused relied upon the Judgment titled as Kavita Chanderkant Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra & Anr, Supreme Court of India,2 wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that :
"13...... This Court has time and again held that mere abduction does not bring an accused under the ambit of section 366 IPC. It must be proved that the accused abducted the women with the intent that she may be compelled or knowing it to be likely that she may be compelled to marry any person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. .........2
Kavita Chanderkant Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra & Anr, Supreme Court of India in Crl.Appeal No. 459/2016.Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 27 of 38
State v. Manish Talreja
14. Even if it is proved that respondent no.2 forcibly took her to his house, but the later version that the intention was to marry her or to force or seduce her to illicit intercourse is clearly an afterthought.................
15. In view of the forgoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the charge for the offence under section 366 IPC is not maintainable and the High Court was right for the holding so.........".
In the present case also, even if it is proved that the accused dragged the complainant inside the Innova Car then also, his intention to marry the complainant or to force or seduce her to illicit intercourse is clearly absent. In view of the abovesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution miserably failed in proving the charge u/s 366 IPC r/w Section 511 IPC against the accused.
(XI) Accused was also charged for the offence u/s 506 (Part-II) IPC for extending threats to the complainant and her son to cause death of the son and to teach a lesson to the complainant.
During final arguments, ld. Defence counsel relied upon Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Manik Taneja Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 28 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja v. State of Karnatka, in Crl.Appeal no. 141 of 2015, arising out of SLP (Crl.) 6449 of 2014 and emphasized para nos. 13, 14 & 15 of the said Judgment, which reads as under :
13. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. "Criminal intimidation" as defined in Section 503 IPC is as under:-
"503. Criminal Intimidation.- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation.- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section."Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 29 of 38
14. A reading of the definition of "Criminal intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.
15. In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of "Criminal intimidation". The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 30 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the minds of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty..........."
He also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as State of NCT of Delhi v. Jawahar Singh, Crl.A.689/2025 dated 18.07.2025 and emphasized para nos. 38 to 42, of the said Judgment, which reads as under :
"38. A bare perusal of Section 506 IPC makes it clear thatbefore an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must beestablished that an accused had an intention to cause alarm to the Prosecutrix. Mere threatsgiven by the accused not with an intentionto cause alarm, would not constitute an offence ofcriminal intimidation.
39. In the case of Manik Taneja vs. State of Karnataka, (2015) 7 SCC 423, the Apex Court had observed that simply using abusive or threatening language without any intent to cause alarm, does not come within the scope of Section 503 IPC. For a threat to qualify under this Section, it must be made with the intention to cause Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 31 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja alarm to the person threatened or to coerce them into doing something they are not legally obligated to do, or to refrain from doing something they are legally permitted to do.
40. Furthermore, the Apex Court in Naresh Aneja vs. State of U.P., (2025) 2 SCC 604 referred to Sharif Ahmed vs. State of U.P., (2024) 14 SCC 122 wherein it was held that an offence of criminal intimidation arises when CRL. A. 689/2025 Page 13 of 15 Signature Not Verified Signed By:ANIL KUMAR BHATT Signing Date:18.07.2025 19:02:27 the accused intends to cause alarm to the victim, though it does not matter whether the victim is alarmed or not.
41. In the present case, first and the foremost in every statement, the Prosecutrix had stated that she pushed the Respondent and ran out of the house and thereafter, had stated that she was threatened by the Respondent. If the Prosecutrix had left immediately on being allegedly sexually assaulted by pushing away the Respondent, where was the occasion for the Respondent to extend threat to the Prosecutrix. The sequence of events, as narrated by the prosecutrix, does not clearly establish Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 32 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja that the alleged threat was made with the intention to cause alarm.
42. Mere threats given by the accused not with an intention to cause alarm, would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation. The Prosecution in the facts of the case has not been able to prove the offence under Section 506 IPC."
Perusal of the testimony of PW-1/complainant and PW-2 complainant's son shows that during her examination-in-chief, PW- 1 deposed that 04.11.2011, she pasted a notice of stay of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on the gate of her house and at around 06:15 PM, she saw that accused Manish was removing this notice and when she objected to the same, accused Manish pushed her son and threatened to kill him. Thereafter, he twisted her right hand and hit on her chest and dragged her inside the Innova Car. She further deposed that he was also threatening " तुम मुझे जानती नहीं हो police or Court को मैं अपनी pocket में रखता हूँ, तू अपनी पहले वाली पिटाई भूल गई है क्या, तू अपनी पहले वाली FIR वापिस ले ले." He also threatened for withdrawing earlier FIR registered against him and threatened her to Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 33 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja kill all the other family members of her family in case of non withdrawal of the FIR and thereafter, he ran away from the spot in his car. Complainant's son PW-2 deposed that accused Manish Talreja had torn the notice in their presence and when accused was objected by him and his mother, he pushed him and thereafter, he threatened him while using the words " Saale tere ko jaan se maar doonga". He further deposed that the accused also threatened his mother that he would kill his mother and his family members and he also asked to withdraw the previous complaint against him by saying that "Apni pehle wali FIR wapis le lo varna poorey pariwar ko jaan se maar doonga".
When it has already been observed by this Court that prosecution failed to prove charges against the accused for offence u/s 323/354 and 366 IPC r/w section 511 IPC, then the abovesaid allegations against the accused of twisting hand, causing injury and trying to abduct the complainant and also causing injury to the son of complainant cannot be relied upon. It is also not the case of the prosecution that apart from the said date, time and place, accused also contacted the complainant, her son or other family members in Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 34 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja any manner in furtherance of his threat to them. Accordingly, prosecution failed to prove that except using simple threatening language by the accused, there was any intent to cause alarm by the accused to the alleged victims in this case.
In view of the abovesaid settled legal position, mere threats given by the accused without any intention to cause alarm would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation. Accordingly, the prosecution in the present case has failed to prove charge u/s 506 (Part-II) IPC against the accused.
Conclusion :
26. From the testimonies of witnesses and circumstances and facts of this case, at this stage, this Court comes to the conclusion that the case of the prosecution does not inspire the confidence of this Court as prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond the reasonable doubt.
27. With this background, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the complicity of accused Manish Talreja for the commission of crime beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts and has not been Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 35 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja able to prove all the ingredients of the offences u/s u/s 323/354 IPC, 366 IPC r/w section 511 IPC and Section 506 (Part-II) IPC., for which accused has been charged and faced trial. Accordingly, accused Manish Talreja is acquitted of the Charge u/s 323/354 IPC, 366 IPC r/w section 511 IPC and Section 506 (Part-II) IPC.
28. Accused has been directed to furnish bail bonds in view of Section 481 of BNSS which has been furnished and accepted for the period of six months from today.
29. File be consigned to record room.
30. In view of the Judgment titled as Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) v. State of Gujarat, 3 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the specimen chart of witnesses examined, specimen chart of exhibited documents and Specimen Chart for material objects/Muddamals are as follows :3
Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) v. State of Gujarat, in Criminal Appeal No. 2973 of 2023, decided on 15.12.2025.
Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 36 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja Specimen Chart of witnesses examined Prosecution Name of witnesses Description witnesses No. PW-1 Smt. 'J' Complainant and Injured PW-2 Sh. Janamejaya Son of complainant PW-3 Retired IO/SI Raj Kumar Investigating officer Specimen Chart for Exhibited Documents Exhibit No. Description of the Proved by/attested by Exhibit Ex.P.5 Site Plan Admitted by the accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.6 Rukka Admitted by the accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW-1/A Complaint of PW-1 Smt. 'J' complainant/injured Smt. 'J' Ex.PW-1/B Statement of PW-1 Smt. 'J' complainant u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW-3/A Application of the IO PW-3 retired IO/SI Raj Kumar moved before the Court for recording statement of the complainant u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 37 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja Ex.PW-3/B Arrest memo of PW-3 retired IO/SI Raj Kumar accused Manish Talreja Ex.PW-3/C Disclosure statement PW-3 retired IO/SI Raj Kumar of accused Manish Talreja
Specimen Chart for material objects/Muddamals Material Object Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by No. Nil Nil Nil Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
Pronounced in the open 2026.03.24
17:08:18 +0530
Court on 24.03.2026 (Dr. Yadvender Singh)
Additional Sessions Judge -05,
(West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi
It is certified that this Judgment contains 38 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed by YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.03.24 17:08:27 +0530 (Dr. Yadvender Singh) Additional Sessions Judge -05, (West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi Case No. 495/2022 FIR No. 634/2013 Page 38 of 38 State v. Manish Talreja