Delhi District Court
State vs Kishore Kumar on 27 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02,
DISTRICT EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Neha Garg, DJS
CNR No.: DLET020020472014
State vs. Kishore Kumar
FIR No. 494/2013
PS. Geeta Colony
U/s. 506/509 of IPC
JUDGMENT
1) CR No. of the case : 7054/2016
2) The date of commission of : From 06.12.2011 to
offence 13.11.2013
3) The name of the complainant : Ms. Krishna Malik,
D/o Late Sh. Ram Lal,
R/o H. No. 8/125, Ist Floor,
Geeta Colony, Delhi.
4) The name & parentage of : Kishore Kumar,
accused S/o Sh. Kishan Kumar
R/o H. No. 8/46, 2nd Floor,
Geeta Colony, Delhi.
5) Offences involved : 506/509 of IPC
6) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final order : Acquitted for offences u/s.
506/509 of IPC
8) The date of such order : 27.09.2025
Date of Institution : 22.01.2014
Judgment reserved on : 25.09.2025
FIR No. 494/2013 State vs. Kishore Kumar Page No. 1 of 15
PS Geeta Colony
Digitally
signed by
NEHA NEHA
Date:
GARG
GARG 2025.09.27
17:27:50
+0530
BRIEF FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE PRESENT CASE: -
01. The case of the prosecution is that from 06.12.2011 to 13.11.2013 at unknown time, on various occasions and at various places within the jurisdiction of Police Station (PS) Geeta Colony, accused Kishore Kumar uttered vulgar, objectionable and abusive words to complainant Ms. Krishna Malik and also threatened her and thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable u/s. 506/509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC').
02. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the offences punishable u/s. 506/509 of IPC was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused Kishore Kumar was consequently summoned. Perusal of file reveals that charge for commission of offences punishable u/s. 506/509 of IPC was framed against the accused by the Court on 12.04.2016, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE CASE: -
03. To substantiate its case, prosecution has examined Six (6) witnesses in support of its case.
04. PW1/Ms. Krishna Malik (complainant) has deposed that from the year approximately 2006-2007, accused Kishore Kumar was residing at second floor of the house in which she was residing. She further stated that on the day of janmashtami of 2009, she raised objection to panditji of the temple situated near her house, to lower the voice of the loudspeaker which used to be run in the temple but the panditji of the temple did not pay any heed to her objection. She further deposed that FIR No. 494/2013 State vs. Kishore Kumar Page No. 2 of 15 PS Geeta Colony Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA Date:
GARG GARG 2025.09.27 17:27:51 +0530 thereafter, she made complaint in this regard to the concerned SDM and he had issued an order to lower the voice of the loudspeaker so that it remained only in the premises of the temple. Thereafter, all the persons from the locality had gathered and formed a society against her (PW1) and asked her to leave the locality. She further deposed that the accused Kishore Kumar, who was residing at the second floor was interested in buying the first floor, in which she was residing. She further deposed that whenever, the members of the locality used to do ' kirtan' in the temple, she called the police to lower the voice of the loudspeaker and accused Kishore Kumar used to abuse her on those occasions. PW1 further deposed that as she was a patient of migraine and therefore, she used to keep herself mum. She further deposed that the member of the locality also associated the accused. Complainant/PW1 also deposed that the accused used to say that 'randi tu tuition ke naam pe dhanda karti hain' and also used vulgar and abusive language towards her and her daughter. She further deposed that on her complaint, a kalandara was made against the panditji. After some time, in December 2011, a kalandara for use of abusive and vulgar language was also prepared against the accused. She further deposed in May 2012, an order was issued from the Court of SEM and a bond was executed by the accused. Thereafter, in February 2012, accused had vacated the second floor and shifted to somewhere else in Geeta Colony. PW1 further deposed that however, after leaving the premises, the accused used to visit the locality and whenever he got chance, he used abusive and vulgar language against the complainant. Accused has threatened her that 'main tujhe jaan se marva dunga, tere upar tezab phek dunga, teri beti ko uthwa lunga' and he also threatened PW1 that all the locality members are still with him and he can do FIR No. 494/2013 State vs. Kishore Kumar Page No. 3 of 15 PS Geeta Colony Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA Date:
GARG GARG 2025.09.27 17:27:51 +0530 anything against him. During her testimony, PW1 has proved her complaint (Ex.PW1/A), copy of Order u/s. 133 Cr.P.C passed by Sh. D. P. Singh (Mark-A), SDM Gandhi Nagar, copy of absolute order u/s. 138 Cr.P.C passed by Sh. Sandeep Gulati, SDM Gandhi Nagar (Mark-B) and copy of Kalandra u/s. 107/150 Cr.P.C passed by Ld. SEM East Distt, Delhi against the accused (Mark-C). PW1 had also brought on record one CD pertaining to the incident (Ex.PW1/B) along with certificate u/s. 65B of Evidence Act (Ex.PW1/C).
Thereafter, PW/Ms. Krishna Malik was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel at length.
05. PW2/Ms. Shraddha Malik (daughter of complainant) has deposed that the accused Kishore Kumar used to reside on the floor above their house and he used to abuse her frequently. She has deposed that the accused was Joint Secretary of a temple located in their street and a loud speaker was used in the said temple which caused difficulties to her mother, a patient of migraine. PW2 has deposed that on their representation, the SDM had ordered the control of use of the loud speaker and restrained the office bearers of the temple to control the noise and due to this fact, the accused held a grudge against them. On account of this fact the accused used to abuse her and her mother whenever they were using the stairs and other common areas in his presence. She also deposed that accused used to abuse in filthy language and also threatened them with disrobing and with acid attack and also used to restrain the ways of the visitors to their house. PW2 further deposed that accused also hit her mother (PW1) once with a motorcycle and had also accused her mother of being an atheist. PW2 has further deposed in her testimony that the FIR No. 494/2013 State vs. Kishore Kumar Page No. 4 of 15 PS Geeta Colony Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA Date:
GARG GARG 2025.09.27 17:27:50 +0530 accused still visits their street as his relatives live therein and, on such visits, he uses abusive and filthy language against her and her mother. PW2 had correctly identified the accused during her testimony.
Thereafter, PW2/Ms. Shraddha Malik was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel at length.
06. PW3/Ms. Suman Juneja, has deposed that complainant used to give tuition classes to her child. She further deposed that on the day of incident, when she went to drop her child for his tuition classes, a quarrel was taking place between complainant and accused. She further deposed that the accused was hurling abuses upon the complainant and she dropped her child for his tuition classes and left. She further deposed that she does not remember as to when the police officials had called her regarding present case. PW3 had correctly identified the accused during her testimony.
Thereafter, PW3/Ms. Suman Juneja was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel at length.
07. PW4/Assistant Sub-Inspector Ajay Kumar has deposed that on 11.12.2013, he was posted at PS Geeta Colony as Constable and on that day, he was present at PS. Meanwhile, accused Kishore Kumar came to PS. PW4 further deposed that the IO arrested the accused in his presence vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/A and the IO also conducted the personal search of accused vide memo Ex. PW4/B. PW4 further deposed that the accused was granted police bail. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement in the PS. However, PW4/ASI Ajay Kumar was not cross-examined by FIR No. 494/2013 State vs. Kishore Kumar Page No. 5 of 15 PS Geeta Colony Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA Date:
GARG GARG 2025.09.27 17:27:50 +0530 Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity given.
08. PW5/Sub-Inspector Satpal was the Duty Officer of PS Geeta Colony on 13.11.2013 and he has proved the registration of the present FIR & endorsement on the rukka (Ex. PW-5/B).
PW5/SI Satpal was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
09. PW6/Sub-Inspector Vikas Kumar, has deposed that on 12.11.2013, he was posted at PS Geeta Colony as SI and on that day, the complaint in the present case was marked to him by the SHO concerned on 12.11.2013. He further deposed that on 13.11.2013, he prepared rukka on the complaint Ex.PW6/A and got the FIR registered in the present case. He further deposed that on 14.11.2013, he recorded the statement of DO u/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. He further deposed that on 03.12.2013, he reached at the house of the complainant i.e., 8/125, Geeta Colony, Delhi where, he met with the daughter of complainant Sharadha, who informed about the incident and he recorded her statement. PW6 further deposed that during the local inquiry on the spot, he also met one Ms. Rajani Bala and recorded her statement u/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. On 11.12.2013, he called the accused to PS for inquiry thereafter, accused was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex.PW4/A and personal search of the accused was also conducted Ex.PW4/B. PW6 further deposed that accused was released on surety bond vide surety bond Ex.PW6/B and that on 12.12.2013, during local inquiry, he had also recorded the statement of one Ms. Suman Juneja u/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. He further deposed that on 13.12.2013, after completing the investigation and recording the statement of witnesses, he (PW6) has prepared the charge-sheet and forwarded to the Court.
FIR No. 494/2013 State vs. Kishore Kumar Page No. 6 of 15 PS Geeta Colony Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA Date:
GARG GARG 2025.09.27 17:27:51 +0530 PW6/ Sub-Inspector Vikas Kumar, was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel at length.
10. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of accused was recorded u/s. 281 r/w Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused who maintained his innocence. Accused stated that the present was a false case and he has been wrongly implicated in this case. He further stated that the complainant and her daughter are in habit of making such complaints against the people of the locality to harass them and to extort money from them. He also stated that he had sold the said property i.e., 8/125, 2nd floor, Geeta Colony, Delhi 31 on 14.02.2012. Initially the accused has chosen to lead defence evidence, however, subsequently he had expressed his unwillingness to lead defence evidence and accordingly, vide Order dated 09.09.2025, defence evidence was closed. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
11. Final arguments as advanced by the Ld. APP for the State and by Ld. Counsel for the accused have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION: -
12. At the very onset, it is pertinent to mention that it is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the State to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence and it is for the prosecution to ensure that its case is able to stand on its own legs. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness of the defence of the accused if any.
FIR No. 494/2013 State vs. Kishore Kumar Page No. 7 of 15 PS Geeta Colony Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA Date:
GARG GARG 2025.09.27 17:27:49 +0530 Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
13. Now, I shall be examining and analyzing the evidence of the present case in the light of the aforesaid settled legal position. Firstly, I shall be dealing with the offence u/s. 506 of IPC. It is no longer res integra that to attract the offence of 'criminal intimidation' u/s. 506 of the IPC, it must be established that accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. Mere threats given by the accused not with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant would not constitute an offence of 'criminal intimidationn'. For criminal intimidation to be established, the accused must have intended to instill fear in the complainant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Manik Taneja and Another vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., Crml. Appeal No. 141/2015 has examined the ingredients of Sections 503 and 506 of the IPC and has observed as follows:
"11. xxxxxxxxxxxx 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."
14. In the instant case, it is to be noted that the complainant has stated in the complaint Ex. PW1/A that the accused has been threatening the complainant every now and then while going to his floor and while going back to the street. It is further stated in the complaint that the FIR No. 494/2013 State vs. Kishore Kumar Page No. 8 of 15 PS Geeta Colony Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA Date:
GARG GARG 2025.09.27 17:27:50 +0530 accused threatened the complainant by saying 'Police walo ne mera kya ukhar liya hai, Mai teri zindagi narak bana dunga'. Complainant has deposed before the Court that accused has threatened her by saying ' Mai tujhe jaan se marwa dunga, tere upar tezab phek dunga, teri beti ko uthwa dunga' and he also threatened the complainant by saying that all the locality members are with him and the complainant cannot do anything against him.
15. Apart from the aforesaid averments made in the complaint and the deposition before the Court, there was no other averments made by the complainant qua the alleged threats extended by the accused. It is to be noted that even if the averments of the complainant are per se accepted, then also the threats alleged to have been given to the complainant do not fall within the definition of the 'criminal intimidation' in as much the complainant has nowhere stated that the threats given by the accused caused any alarm to her or her daughter. Therefore, no offence u/s. 506 of IPC is not made against the accused.
16. Now coming to the other aspect of the matter, complainant has alleged that the accused has used filthy language towards and her daughter. Complainant has deposed that the accused used to reside on the second floor of house no. 8/125, Geeta Colony, Delhi whereas she is residing at the first floor of the said house. Complainant has deposed that whenever the members of the locality used to do 'kirtan' in the temple, she called the police to lower the voice of the loudspeaker and accused Kishore Kumar used to abuse her on those occasions. Complainant has deposed that the accused used to say that ' randi tu tuition ke naam pe dhanda karti hain' FIR No. 494/2013 State vs. Kishore Kumar Page No. 9 of 15 PS Geeta Colony Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA Date:
GARG GARG 2025.09.27 17:27:50 +0530 and also used vulgar and abusive language towards her and her daughter. She has further deposed that in December 2011, a kalandara for use of abusive and vulgar language was also prepared against the accused and thereafter, in February 2012, accused had vacated the second floor and shifted to somewhere else in Geeta Colony. Complainant further deposed that despite vacating the premises, the accused used to visit the locality and whenever he got chance, he used abusive and vulgar language against her.
17. PW2/Ms. Shradha Malik, who is the daughter of the complainant, has deposed that on their representation, the SDM had ordered the control of use of the loud speaker and restrained the office bearers of the temple to control the noise and due to this fact, the accused held a grudge against them. PW2 has deposed that on account of this fact, the accused used to abuse her and her mother whenever they were using the stairs and other common areas in his presence. She also deposed that accused used to abuse in filthy language and also threatened them with disrobing and with acid attack and also used to restrain the ways of the visitors to their house. She also deposed during her testimony that the accused still visits their street as his relatives live therein and during such visits, he uses abusive and filthy language against her and her mother.
18. It is pertinent to note that the complainant and PW2 have not specified any date, month or the year or the time when the alleged threats were extended by the accused. Complainant and PW2 have deposed in their cross-examination that they do not remember the specific dates of the accused abusing them. Complainant has deposed in her cross-examination FIR No. 494/2013 State vs. Kishore Kumar Page No. 10 of 15 PS Geeta Colony Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA Date:
GARG GARG 2025.09.27 17:27:51 +0530 that she does not remember the date when the accused has abused her by saying 'randi tu tuition ke naam pe dhanda karti hain'. Complainant has vaguely deposed that whenever she had called the police about the use of loudspeaker, accused has abused her and her daughter and that even after shifting from the premises in February 2012, the accused used to visit the locality and used to abuse the complainant. It is also pertinent to know that the aforesaid material particulars about the date, month or the year when the alleged threats were extended by the accused are also conspicuously absent from the complaint Ex. PW1/A, the FIR as well as the charge sheet.
19. Complainant has relied on copy of one kalandra 'Mark C' and she has deposed that in December 2011, a kalandra was prepared against the accused relating to the use of abusive and vulgar language by the accused. However, perusal of document 'Mark C' reveals that the said kalandra u/s. 111 of Cr.P.C. pertained to the dispute regarding the voice of loudspeaker and the accused was directed to maintain peace in the area. The said document nowhere supports the case of the complainant that the accused had used abusive language against her whenever she had called the police to lower the voice of the loudspeaker. Complainant has also relied on one CD pertaining to the incident in question. Complainant has admitted in her cross-examination that she did not offer the CD to the investigating agency. Similarly, IO of the Case PW6/SI Vikas Kumar has deposed before the Court that the complainant or her daughter did not hand over any CD (audio recording) to him regarding the incident. Complainant has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation as to why she withheld the aforesaid crucial piece of evidence from the investigating agency and did not supply the said CD to the IO at the stage of FIR No. 494/2013 State vs. Kishore Kumar Page No. 11 of 15 PS Geeta Colony Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA Date:
GARG GARG 2025.09.27 17:27:49 +0530 investigation. Had the complainant supplied the said CD to the IO during investigation, the IO would have been able to verify the contents of the CD. The conduct of the complainant in not furnishing the CD to the IO during investigation only raises doubt about the genuineness of the CD, which has been subsequently produced by the complainant during her testimony. In such a scenario, no reliance can be placed on the contents of the said CD.
20. Another point that warrants attention is that there is no specific reference to the words used or the contextual details of the abusive/vulgar language used by the accused in the complaint Ex.PW1/A. Although, the complainant has deposed before the Court that the accused used to abuse her whenever she has called police for use of loudspeaker and her daughter (PW2) has deposed that due to the objection of the complainant on use of loudspeaker, accused held the grudge against the complainant and he used to abuse her and the complainant, however, no such contextual details attributing any motive to the accused to abuse the complainant and her daughter are mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW1/A, the present FIR or the charge sheet although, the previous litigation finds mention in the aforesaid documents. It is settled law that mere assertion of 'filthy language' being used by the accused or 'indecent gestures' being made by him are insufficient to constitute the offence u/s. 509 of IPC. In the case of Madhushree Datta vs. State of Karnataka, (2025) 3 SCC 612, the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that the ultimate test for ascertaining as to whether modesty has been outraged is the action of the offender and sufficiency of material to establish intention or knowledge of the offender to insult the modesty. The Hon'ble Apex Court opined that the FIR No. 494/2013 State vs. Kishore Kumar Page No. 12 of 15 PS Geeta Colony Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA Date:
GARG GARG 2025.09.27 17:27:51 +0530 term 'filthy language' when examined in isolation, without any contextual framework or accompanying words, do not fall within the purview of Section 509 of the IPC.
21. In fact, a careful perusal of the record would reveal that the complainant and her daughter have improved their versions before the court. It is to be noted that in the original complaint Ex. PW 1/A, the complainant has nowhere stated that the accused has threatened and abused her daughter also. It is merely stated in the complaint that the accused never misses a single chance to abuse the complainant. In fact, in her statement u/s. 161 of Cr.P.C., the daughter of the complainant has stated that the accused abuses and threatens her mother. Neither in the complaint nor in the statement of the daughter of the complainant recorded u/s. 161 of Cr.P.C., there are any allegations of the accused abusing the daughter of the complainant. There is no mention of the fact that the accused was holding a grudge against the complainant and her daughter due to their opposition to the loudspeaker, or the accused used to hurl abuses at the complainant in the stairs and the common area, or the accused had extended threats to the complainant and her daughter about disrobing or acid attack, or the accused restraining the way of the visitors of the complainant, or the accused hitting the mother of the complainant with her motorcycle, or accusing the complainant of being an atheist either in the complaint Ex.PW1/A, the FIR or the chargesheet. I would remiss in mentioning that the list of abuses Ex. PW2/A given by the daughter of the complainant do not correspond the abuse mentioned by the complainant before the Court.
FIR No. 494/2013 State vs. Kishore Kumar Page No. 13 of 15 PS Geeta Colony Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA Date:
GARG GARG 2025.09.27 17:27:50 +0530
22. The prosecution has also examined Ms. Suman Juneja as PW3 who has deposed that the complainant used to give tuition classes to her child and when she had gone to drop her child to the tuition class, a quarrel was taking place between the complainant and the accused was hurling abuses at the complainant. However, even the said witness has failed to specify the date of any such incident. In fact, she has resiled from her earlier statement made to the police u/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. as she has deposed before the Court that she does not remember if she has stated to the police that accused 'Gandi Gandi Galiya deta hai aur jaan se marne ki dhamki deta hai'.
23. As per the deposition of the complainant herself, there is previous litigation between the parties for use of loudspeaker and in regard to the same, a kalandra was also filed. Considering the admitted previous litigation between the parties, the inference in relation to false implication of the accused is to be favoured against the inference that the accused had committed the offence.
24. From the foregoing discussion it is clear that the case of the prosecution is inherently weak as the complainant has made vague allegations about the accused hurling abuses at her without specifying the date, month or year or the time of any such incident(s). The complainant has considerably improved her case before the Court and admittedly, there is previous litigation between the parties. It is imperative to understand that in order to pronounce a conviction in a criminal case, the accused 'must be' guilty and not merely 'may be' guilty. For an accused to be guilty, guilt should not be based on mere surmises and conjectures but it FIR No. 494/2013 State vs. Kishore Kumar Page No. 14 of 15 PS Geeta Colony Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA Date:
GARG GARG 2025.09.27 17:27:50 +0530 should be based on cogent evidence. The accused has clearly presented a defence that appears probable and as per the settled law, this is all that is required as preponderance of probabilities is not a rigorous standard of proof, but only so much evidence as makes the Court lean in favour of one side and not the other. Consequently, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. The case of the prosecution in such circumstances against the accused for the offence u/s. 509 of IPC stands not proved.
FINAL ORDER: -
25. In view of the above discussion, this Court has arrived at the conclusion that prosecution has failed to discharge its burden qua the offences punishable u/s. 506/509 of IPC. Accordingly, accused namely Kishore Kumar is acquitted of the offences under Sections 506/509 of IPC.
26. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in open court (NEHA GARG) on 27.09.2025 JMFC-02 (East)/KKD Courts/Delhi
Note: This judgment contains 15 pages and each page has been signed by me.
FIR No. 494/2013 State vs. Kishore Kumar Page No. 15 of 15 PS Geeta Colony Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA Date:
GARG GARG 2025.09.27 17:27:51 +0530