Delhi District Court
State vs Nitin Pandey on 15 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SHRI HIMANSHU RAMAN SINGH
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04 (SOUTH-WEST)
DWARKA COURTS:DELHI
FIR No. 537/18
PS Kapashera
State vs Nitin Pandey
15.04.19
Judgement
1.Sl. No. of the Case : 6209/19 2. Date of commission of offence : 03.11.2018
3. Date of institution of the case : 12.02.2009
4. Name of the complainant : HC Binesh Kumar
5. Name of the accused, parentage & Address : Nitin Pandey s/o Sh. K.M Pandey R/o H.No. 1070, E, Inder Gali, Babbar Pur, Shahdra, Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : u/s 283/290 IPC
7. Plea of accused : Not pleaded guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 15.04.2019
9. Final Order : Convicted
10. Date of final order : 15.04.2019 Brief statement of reasons for decision:
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 03.11.2018 at about 5.35 pm at RZ-1E- Red Light, PS Kapashera, New Delhi accused put the tent and vehicles on the footpath, which was causing obstruction in a public way and despite 1 Of 3 asking, he did not remove the same. At the complaint of the complainant the present case was registered and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under section 283/290 IPC.
2. The prosecution filed th charge sheet against the accused u/s 283/290 IPC. After going through the charge sheet, the accused was summoned and the provisions of Cr.P.C were complied with. Notice was framed against the accused u/s 283/290 IPC on the ground that he put the tent and vehicles on the footpath which was causing obstruction in a public way and despite asking, he did not remove the same.
3. Prosecution examined HC Binesh Kumar as PW-1. He was on patrolling duty and saw that the accused had put tent and vehicles on the footpath and causing obstruction to the public. However, despite asking to remove the same, he did not remove the same. Hence, he prepared rukka and handed over to Ct. Yograj for registration of case. He also prepared the site plan Ex. PW-1/B and arrested the accused and conducted personal search vide memo Ex.
PW-1/C and Ex. PW-1/D. He also proved the photographs as Ex. P-1. PW Ct. Yog Raj also substantiated the testimony of the witness, who was examined as PW-2.
4. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of the accused was recorded. The accused opted not to lead DE.
5. After going through the record and the submissions made by the Ld. APP and the accused, this court is of the 2 Of 3 opinion that prosecution has been able to discharge the burden of proof cast upon it. There is no reason to doubt the testimony of the witnesses.
6. In view of the detailed discussion above, accused is held guilty of the offence under section 283/290 IPC in present case.
7. Let convict be heard on the point of sentence.
HIMANSHU Digitally signed by
HIMANSHU RAMAN
RAMAN SINGH
Date: 2019.04.15
SINGH 15:29:44 +0530
(Himanshu Raman Singh)
MM-04/ Dwarka
Delhi/15.04.19
3 Of 3