Delhi District Court
"Satish Mehra vs . Delhi Administration & Anrs" 1996 Jcc ... on 24 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
State v. Jai Bhagwan & Jayant
FIR No. 945/04
PS Paschim Vihar
U/s 452/384/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
C C No. : 1001/2/10
Date of Institution : 14.09.2005
Date of Commission of Offence : 06.10.2004
Name of the complainant : Keshav Lal Kohli
S/o Khanya Lal Kohli
R/o House No. 71, Vindyachal
Apartment, Inder Enclave, Delhi
Name & address of the accused : A-1 Jai Bhagwan
S/o Balak Ram
R/o Village Nizampur, Delhi
A-2 Jayant @ Pahalwan
S/o Ran Singh
R/o VPO Daboda Khurd, PS
Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana
Offence complained of : U/s 452/384/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of reserve for judgment : 28.01.2015
Date of announcing of judgment : 24.02.2015
State v. Jai Bhagwan & Ors. U/s 452/384/34 IPC 1/4
FIR No. 945/04, PS Paschim Vihar
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment this court shall decide the present case u/s 452/384/34 IPC.
2. The story of the prosecution is that on 06.10.2004, the accused persons came to the house of the complainant Keshav Lal Kohli i.e house no.71, Vindhyachal Apartment, Inder Enclave, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. They told the complainant that they had come on behalf of Harmeet Singh, to take Rs.6,00,00/- from the complainant's Son Vinay Kohli. The complainant told them that his son had already settled the accounts with Harmeet Singh and no further payment is pending. On this, accused persons started arguing with the complainant and one of them hit the complainant on his head with a sharp edged weapon due to which the complainant fell down. The accused persons fled away.
3. It is further the allegations of the complainant that Harmeet Singh (since discharged) had threatened them on telephone to make the payment of Rs. 6,00,000/- to Jayant Pahalwan. It is further the story of the prosecution is that on 19.11.2004 at about 7.00 am, again the said accused came to the complainant's house and told him to make the payment of Rs.6,00,000/-. Due to their threats, the complainant was compelled to give Rs.20,000/- to the accused persons. Even then, they remained in the complainant's house and kept on threatening them. On seeing this, the wife of the complainant called the police. The accused Jai Bhagwan managed to run away but the accused Jayant was apprehended by the police. Thus, accused persons are alleged to State v. Jai Bhagwan & Ors. U/s 452/384/34 IPC 2/4 FIR No. 945/04, PS Paschim Vihar have committed an offence under Section 452/384/34 IPC. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out.
4. Charge sheet was filed against the accused in the court. Documents were supplied to the accused persons and thereafter charge under Section 452/384/34 IPC was framed against the accused Jai Bhagwan and Jayant vide order dated 08.03.2011 by the Ld. Predecessor to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution summoned the complainant Keshav Lal Kohli and witness Vinay Kohli. However, both the complainant Keshav Lal Kohli and PW Vinay Kohli, have remained unserved even through DCP concerned. The name of complainant Keshav Lal Kohli and Vinay Kohli were dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 28.01.2015. In the absence of complainant's testimony, the guilt of the accused cannot be proved. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anrs" 1996 JCC 507, "In case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date". In view of the aforesaid case law, PE was closed. Since nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused persons, recording of statement of accused persons was also dispensed with. State v. Jai Bhagwan & Ors. U/s 452/384/34 IPC 3/4 FIR No. 945/04, PS Paschim Vihar
6. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld APP for state and the Counsel for accused persons and carefully perused the documents on record.
7. In the case at hand, the complainant Keshav Lal Kohli and his son Vinay Kohli have remained unserved even through DCP concerned and their names were accordingly dropped from the list of witnesses. In absence of their testimony, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons had entered into the house of the complainant and put the complainant under fear and hurt and dishonestly induced him to deliver a sum of Rs.20,000/-.
8. In view of the above discussion, court is of the opinion that the guilt of the accused persons have not been proved and thus they are entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, accused Jai Bhagwan and Jayant are acquitted under Section 452/384/34 IPC.
9. As per section 437A Cr.P.C accused persons are admitted to bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount.
ANNOUNCED ON 24.02.2015 (SAUMYA CHAUHAN) MM-07(West)/ Tis Hazari Court /24.02.2015 State v. Jai Bhagwan & Ors. U/s 452/384/34 IPC 4/4 FIR No. 945/04, PS Paschim Vihar