Delhi District Court
State vs . Manzoor Ahmed on 30 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE04,
SOUTH DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Manzoor Ahmed
FIR NO: 357/00
P. S. Sangam Vihar
U/s 506 IPC
Unique ID no. 02403R0050722001
JUDGMENT
Sl. No. of the case : 1667/2 (15.2.2011)
Date of its institution : 17.7.2001
Name of the complainant : Mrs. Khurshida Khan, W/o Sh.
Manzoor Ahmed, R/o E122,
Vishwakarma Colony near Pul
Prahlad Pur, New Delhi.
Date of Commission of offence : April, 1999
Name of the accused : Sh. Manzoor Ahmed, S/o Late Sh.
Mohd. Ismail, R/o 4094, Urdu Bazar,
Jama Masjid, Delhi.
Offence complained of : Section 376/506 IPC
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Case reserved for orders : 30.9.2014
Date of judgment : 30.9.2014
Final Order : ACQUITTED
State Vs. Manzoor Ahmed 1/4 FIR no. 357/00
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. This is the prosecution of the aforesaid accused Manzoor Ahmed pursuant to a charge sheet filed by the Police Station Sangam Vihar under section Section 376/506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR no. 357/00.
2. Before I set to give my findings in the instant case, it is desirable to mention that vide order dated 15.2.2003 of Sh. Sanjiv Jain, Ld. MM, accused was summoned for offence punishable u/s 376/506 IPC against which accused/petitioner has preferred revision vide which the said order was partly set aside and modified and the process were directed to be issued against the accused/petitioner for commission of offence u/s 506 IPC. Accordingly, charge u/s 506 IPC was framed against the accused/petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined two witnesses.
4. PW Inspector Dalbir Singh deposed that on 11.9.2000, he was posted at PP Pul Prahlad Pur and on that day investigation of the present case was assigned to him during which he had visited at Aman Hospital, Ratia Marg, Sangam Vihar from where he procured the documents regarding the treatment of complainant and had also visited at Batra hospital from where he procured documents wherein it is mentioned that accused Manjoor Ahmad Khan had shown the complainant as his wife. He had also interrogated one Maulwi at Moti Masjid, Cannought Place regarding the Nikaah between the accused and the complainant Khurshida Khan. In this regard, he had recorded the statement of MoinulHaq, Maulwi and when he produced the copy of nikaahnama, he admitted his signature upon the same by saying that he had signed the same on the instance of complainant. Copy of nikaahnama is mark G. Statement State Vs. Manzoor Ahmed 2/4 FIR no. 357/00 of the aforesaid Maulwi in his handwriting in Urdu is mark H and its translation is mark F. Complainant had also handed over copy of Fatwa received by one Mufti of Fatehpuri Masjid against the accused. Hindi translation of the aforesaid Fatwa is mark I, statement of complainant is mark J and its translation is mark K. His further examination was deferred.
5. PW Mohd. Ayub deposed that in the year 2000, he used to work as Imam at Jama Masjid, Lal Kuan . On 22.7.2000, one Khurshida Khan, W/o Manzoor Khan came to masjid alongwith 45 other persons including one Imam namely MubinulHaq who had performed the ceremony of 'Nikah' of Khurshida Khan with Manzoor Khan . He had also signed on the plain paper which had already signed by Khurshida Khan. He also identified the accused. Thereafter, he has not supported the case of the prosecution and with the permission of the Court was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State wherein he denied the suggestion that accused Manzoor Ahmad had torn the documents related to Nikahnama in his presence. He further denied the suggestion that accused used to deny that he did not get married with Khurshida Khan and used to blame her. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
6. During further prosecution evidence, complainant Khurshida Khan remained unserved even through Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned.
7. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is nothing incriminating against the accused.
8. I have heard the Ld. APP for State and accused persons and perused the records of the case.
9. In order to prove its case, prosecution has cited complainant/victim Khurshida Khan and Mohd. Ayub but to the dismay of the prosecution, complainant Khurshida Khan State Vs. Manzoor Ahmed 3/4 FIR no. 357/00 remained unserved even through Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned. Furthermore, witness Mohd. Ayub has not supported the case of the prosecution. He denied the suggestion that accused Manzoor Ahmad had torn the documents related to Nikahnama in his presence. He further denied the suggestion that accused used to deny that he did not get married with Khurshida Khan and used to blame her. Furthermore, although PW Inspector Dalbir Singh's examination was deferred but no purpose would be served by proceeding with his testimony when the complainant herself has not appeared for deposition. Prosecution has to prove the essential ingredients of criminal intimidation by adducing cogent and tenable evidence, which has not been done in the case in hand. Therefore, it is said that there is no harm in coming to the conclusion that the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
10. In a case titled as Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Admn. & Anr. 1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is held that " in a 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 the future date"
11. Therefore, in ultimate analysis as a result of trial, accused Manzoor Ahmad Khan is acquitted of the offences with which he is charged. He is set at liberty.
Announced in the open court (Navjeet Budhiraja)
on 30.09.2014 Metropolitan Magistrate04,
South, New Delhi
State Vs. Manzoor Ahmed 4/4 FIR no. 357/00