Delhi District Court
State vs . Abhinav & Anr. on 13 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. KISHOR KUMAR, MM-08, WEST
DISTRICT, ROOM NO.30, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. : 294/16
U/s : 384/34 IPC
P.S. : Mianwali Nagar
State Vs. Abhinav & Anr.
JUDGMENT:
a) Sl. No. of the Case : 6051/18
b) Name & address of the : Sh. Akhilesh Yadav
complainant. S/o Sh. Nindku Yadav
R/o 2322, Raja Park Rani Bagh
New Delhi
c) Name & address of : (1) Abhinav
accused s/o Sh. Dinesh Vashist
R/o G-3/60, Model Town, New
Delhi
(2) Himanshu
s/o Sh. Bachan Singh
r/o B-1356, Main Market,
Shastri Nagar, New Delhi
d) Date of Commission of : 10.07.2016
offence
e) Offence complained off : U/s 384/34 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) Final Order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order : 13.12.2019
FIR No: 294/16 State v. Abhinav & Anr. Page No.1/4
Date of Institution : 10.08.2018
Final arguments heard on : 13.12.2019
Judgment Pronounced on : 13.12.2019
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION: -
1. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 09.07.2016 at about 4.30 pm, at D-Mall, Redison Hotel, Paschim Vihar, Delhi both accused persons in furtherance of their common intention put the complainant Akhilash Yadav under fear of injuries demanding Rs.1,00,000/- from him to settle the dispute. Consequently, FIR was registered against the accused persons and investigation was carried out.
2. After investigation, challan for offence U/s 384/34 IPC was filed. Compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C was done.
3. Charge for committing the offence punishable under Section 385/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons on 14.08.2019, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Accused admitted u/s 294 Cr.P.C. MLC No.294/16, FIR No: 294/16 State v. Abhinav & Anr. Page No.2/4 Certificate u/s 65B of I.E. Act, endorsement on rukka, DD Entry No.32A dt. 09.07.2016 Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 respectively.
5. The court issued various summons to the complainant so much so that even the process to the complainant had been issued through the DCP concerned but still the complainant remained unserved. Hence under such circumstances, the name of complainant was deleted from the array of the witnesses today.
6. There is no other eye witness/public witness to the incident in question.
7. Ld. APP for the State requested for examination of other remaining witnesses. The request of Ld. APP for the State after due consideration was declined for the reasons that examination of other remaining witnesses being police officials and formal in nature, would have served no purpose and any such exercise would have been in futility. Hence the P.E. was closed.
FIR No: 294/16 State v. Abhinav & Anr. Page No.3/4
8. Since there was nothing incrimination against the accused persons, their examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.
9. In view of my discussion herein above that the prosecution could not produce and examine its star witness i.e. the complainant Akhilesh Yadav to substantiate its case, it is held that there was no case of the prosecution at all against the accused persons that on 09.07.2016 at about 4.30 pm, at D-Mall, Redison Hotel, Paschim Vihar, Delhi both accused persons in furtherance of their common intention put the complainant Akhilash Yadav under fear of injuries demanding Rs.1,00,000/- from him to settle the dispute. As a result of this both accused persons Abhinav and Himanshu are hereby acquitted of the charged offence u/s 385/34 IPC.
Dictated & Announced in (Kishor Kumar) Open Court on MM-08/West/Delhi 13rd day of December, 2019 13.12.2019 Digitally signed by KISHOR KISHOR KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2019.12.13 16:34:53 +0530 FIR No: 294/16 State v. Abhinav & Anr. Page No.4/4