Delhi District Court
Nitesh Kaushik vs Deepak on 20 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09 (SOUTH-WEST) DWARKA
COURTS: DELHI
Nitesh Kaushik Vs.: Deepak
CC No. : 1633/2023
U/s : 323/341/506 IPC
P.S. : Jafarpur Kalan
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020396662023
2. Date of commission of offence : 24.05.2023
3. Date of institution of the case : 11.08.2023
4. Name of the complainant : Nitesh Kaushik
5. Name of accused, parentage & : Deepak
address S/o Jai Singh Dagar
R/o VPO Dhansa,
New Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : 323/341/506 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
: Convicted u/s 323 IPC
8. Final order but acquitted u/s 341/506
IPC.
9. Date of final order : 20.01.2026
Argued by:- Mr. R. K. Lamba, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Mr. Himanshu Chand, Ld. Counsel for accused.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Page 1 of 18
Date:
CC No.1633/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan Nitesh Kaushik Vs. Deepak AHLAWAT 2026.01.20
14:44:11
+0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. The present case in an off shoot of the criminal complaint filed by the complainant against the accused person in respect of offences punishable under Sections 323/341/506 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for brevity).
2. Succinctly put, the case of complainant is that on 24.05.2023 at about 09:30 pm, one sangeeta, neighbor of complainant developed labour pain and was required to be shifted to the hospital and the complainant took her along with her husband Umesh Prajapat and her mother-in-law Rammo in his car and when the complainant reached near the pond (talaab) at Village Milakpur road, then the complainant observed that Deepak S/o Jai Singh was following him in his car bearing registration no.DL-1CAF-8615 and Deepak overtook the car of complainant and blocked his way. It is stated that thereafter, accused took out the complainant from his car and started assaulting him and complainant shouted for help then Umesh who was accompanying his wife got down from complainant's car and saved him from the grip of Deepak. It is further stated that the accused tried to hit and overrun the complainant in order to kill him with his car and he also threatened to kill him. It is stated that the complainant made a call on 112 number seeking police assistance and the said call was assigned to SI Ashok Kumar for carrying out the investigation but the said investigating officer namely SI Ashok Kumar neither investigated the matter nor took an appropriate legal recourse against accused and the IO initiated proceedings under section 107/150 of Cr. P. C. against both the parties. It is stated that the complainant made police complaint to concerned SHO on Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT CC No.1633/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan Nitesh Kaushik Vs. Deepak Page 2 of 18 AHLAWAT Date:
2026.01.20 14:44:19 +0530 20.07.2023 and to DCP on 20.07.2023, but in vain. However, aggrieved by their inaction, the complaint filed the present complaint case along with the application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P. C.
3. Thereafter, complainant led pre-summoning evidence wherein he examined himself as CW1 and Ms. Ramo Devi as CW2. On the basis of pre-summoning evidence, the accused person was summoned to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 323/341/506 IPC.
4. Upon the appearance of the accused person, the copy of complaint and annexed documents were supplied to him. On finding a prima facie case against the accused person notice of accusation under Sections 323/341/506 IPC was served upon the accused person on 21.11.2024 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant examined two witnesses in the post notice evidence. Complainant examined himself as CW1 and one Ramo Devi as CW2.
CW1 Nitesh Kaushik (the complainant/injured) deposed that on 24.05.2023, he received a call from his friend Umesh at around 09:30 pm, regarding the delivery of his pregnant wife namely Sangeeta and he went to his house and thereafter, Umesh alongwith his wife and mother namely Rammo sat in his car and he started for going towards RTRM Hospital, J. P. Kalan. He stated that he was driving his Wagon R car bearing registration no.DL-2CAU-5223 and when they reached on the outer road near pond (talab) of their village, one car Hyundai Aura bearing registration no.DL-1CAF-8615 came from behind and was giving him light signal for overtaking and he stopped his vehicle for letting the said car to overtake him but the said vehicle did not overtook him and remained behind him. Thereupon, he started Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date: CC No.1633/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan Nitesh Kaushik Vs. Deepak Page 3 of 18 AHLAWAT 2026.01.20 14:44:24 +0530 proceeding in his car and when he reached near pond near Dhansa Malikpur Village, the said vehicle again flashed light from behind to which again he brought his car to side to enable the said car to overtook him but that time the said Aura car overtook and stopped his car by bringing his car in front of his car. He further stated that one person namely Deepak S/o Jai Singh got out of the Aura car, who was resident of his village only and he grabbed him out of his car and started beating him. He further stated that his friend Umesh and his mother who were sitting in his car intervened and Deepak stopped beating him but while going away threatened him that he would kill him and even tried to crush him by his vehicle upon which he went inside the fields to save himself. He further stated that Umesh and his mother asked Deepak to stop but he did not stop and stated that he would kill him today. He further stated that Umesh and his mother pleaded before Deepak to let go of him as wife of Umesh was pregnant and she required immediate medical help. Thereafter, Deepak went away and he took Umesh, his wife and mother to the hospital and upon reaching hospital, he made 112 number call. He further stated that IO namely ASI Ashok Kumar came to his house when he came back from the hospital for investigation purpose. CW1 relied on the following document i.e. copy of aadhar card as Ex.CW1/1, complaint to SHO concerned dated 19.07.2023 as Ex.CW1/2 and complaint to DCP concerned dated 19.07.2023 as Ex.CW1/3. In the cross-examination, he stated that he knew the accused and his family members from last 20-22 years as they were resident of his village. He stated that on the date of incident, he alongwith Umesh, his wife Sangeeta and his mother Ramo Devi were going to RTRM Hospital for delivery of child of Sangeeta. He further stated that accused Deepak came from behind in his vehicle when he was giving dipper light after Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT CC No.1633/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan Nitesh Kaushik Vs. Deepak Page 4 of 18 AHLAWAT Date:
2026.01.20 14:44:29 +0530 they had moved one or two kilas of their village. He further stated that accused Deepak was coming in his white colour Aura vehicle no.DL-1CAF-8615 and accused Deepak after crossing the pond situated near their village made him stop his vehicle after he overtook his vehicle whereafter he came out of his car and started beating him while he was sitting inside his car only through the window. He further stated that his medical examination was not got conducted after the incident as IO informed him that the kind of injury he had sustained after incident would not be relevant for MLC. He further stated that no photograph or video was recorded by any occupants of his vehicle. When the witness asked why did you lodge your complaint before the police station after two months delay after the incident. He stated that IO stated to him that he will initiate proceedings u/S 107/150/151 Cr. P. C. against the accused person and for the same reason, he did not lodge his formal complaint immediately. He further stated that one property related dispute is pending between his family and the family of accused person.
6. CW2 Ramo Devi deposed that on 24.05.2023 at about 09:30 pm, when her daughter-in-law started experiencing labour pain, she alongwith her son Umesh took her in the car of Nitesh, who was her neighbor. She stated that when they were on their way to RTRM Hospital, one car was constantly honking from the back side and when Nitesh, who was driving the car allowed the said Wagon-R to overtake, upon overtaking the driver of the said car, stopped their vehicle and driver of the said vehicle started beating Nitesh. She further stated that when she intervened, she saw Deepak started abusing Nitesh and thereafter he went away and due to the said beatings given by Deepak, Nitesh ran into the fields and when Deepak went away from the spot, she called Nitesh back to the car Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Page 5 of 18 Date:
CC No.1633/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan Nitesh Kaushik Vs. Deepak 2026.01.20 14:44:34 +0530 and Nitesh called at police 100 number and before the police could arrive, they proceeded to hospital. She further stated that she remember the registration number of the car i.e. 8615 in which Deepak arrived. In the cross-examination, she stated that she knew the complainant and his family member for last 34 years and the place of incident was at Milakpur Road near Dhansa Village. She further stated that accused Deepak stopped them at Milakpur Road near Dhansa Village and he was constantly honking from the back side of their car. She further stated that the place of incident had no street light and there was totally dark and accused Deepak came out of his car and started giving beatings to the complainant. She further stated that her son namely Umesh intervened and stopped the accused to give beatings to complainant. She further stated that accused Deepak came in his car make Aura and the registration number of the car of accused was DL-1CAF-8615. She further stated that complainant Nitesh ran into the fields to save himself and they waited for half an hour on the said spot and thereafter her son Umesh contacted the complainant and he reached the spot in sometime. She further stated that the complainant dialed 100 number in her presence but the police officials did not reach to the spot and they reached to the RTRM Hospital, J. P. Kalan. She further stated that she did not give any statement to the police officials at the hospital in writing. She further stated that she gave oral statement to the police officials and they written the same in her presence and statement given by her to the police officials at the hospital was signed by her. She further stated that she did not visit any police station to give her statement to any police official with complainant. She further stated that she did not know that the complainant had given the complaint in the police station after two months of date of incident.
7. The complainant closed his post charge evidence on 16.07.2025.
Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT CC No.1633/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan Nitesh Kaushik Vs. Deepak Page 6 of 18 AHLAWAT Date:
2026.01.20 14:44:39 +0530 STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
8. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused person was recorded without oath under section 281 r/w 313 Cr.PC on 26.08.2025, wherein he stated that no such incident happened and he was never present at the spot and that there was one property dispute between their families and for the same reason, complainant had falsely implicated him in the present case. He further stated that he did not want to lead defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS
9. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for complainant and Ld. Counsel for the accused person at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
10. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for complainant that all the ingredients of the offences are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that complainant witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contended that the motive of accused for the present act was the on going property dispute between them and that the evidences has proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused person be punished for the said offences.
11. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused person has argued that the complainant has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Counsel for accused further argued that the entire case Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT CC No.1633/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan Nitesh Kaushik Vs. Deepak Page 7 of 18 AHLAWAT Date:
2026.01.20 14:44:46 +0530 of the complainant is false and fabricated as neither Umesh and his wife was examined by the complainant nor any police pcr was established by the complainant in his evidences. It is argued that the complainant has failed to discharge the burden cast upon him. As such, it is prayed that the accused person be acquitted for the said offences.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
12. The allegations levelled against the accused are that on 24.05.2023 at about 09:30 pm, accused in his Wagon R car restrained the way of complainant/ PW1 and voluntarily caused hurt and threatened him with dire consequences and thereby committed the offences under Sections 323/341/506 IPC.
The allegations levelled against accused are segregated into two parts. The first set of allegations revolves around commission of offences u/s 323/341 IPC while second pertains to Section 506 IPC.
13. Let us deal with first set of allegations under Sections 323/341 IPC. Before proceeding to evaluate the testimony of complainant and witness examined by him, it is relevant to see as to how the present matter was reported to the concerned authorities. As per PW1, he had made 112 police call whereafter IO namely SI Ashok Kumar came to his house for investigation purposes. In the post charge evidence, no official witness has been examined by complainant to tender the document the complaints made to the authorities whereas when the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. of the complainant was pending, status report was called from the inquiry officer who submit his status report/ ATR on 20.09.2023.
Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2026.01.20 Page 8 of 18 14:44:51 CC No.1633/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan Nitesh Kaushik Vs. Deepak +0530
14. Perusal of the ATR as filed by SI Ashok Kumar reveals that DD no.101 dated 24.05.2023 was recorded thereafter SI Ashok Kumar alongwith HC Virender went to Village Dhansa and met complainant who informed him about the present incident. Copy of the said GD no.101A dated 24.05.2023 time 22:09 hours was filed alongwith ATR which mentions that PCR caller who stated that caller ke sath padosi ne maar pit ki hai". Thereafter, another GD no.116A dated 25.05.2023 was recorded wherein proceedings under Sections 107/150 Cr. P.C. was carried out regarding the factum that considering the tension prevailing between complainant Nitesh and the alleged Deepak, both were proceeded under Section 107/150 Cr. P.C. by asking them to furnish their bonds. Thereby it is evident that on the date of incident i.e. 24.05.2025 complainant /CW1 had made the PCR call qua the incident.
15. Furthermore, CW1 stated in his post charge evidence that on the date of incident after he received a call from his friend Umesh at around 09:30 pm, regarding delivery of his pregnant wife and he went to his house and thereafter, Umesh alongwith his wife and mother sat in his car for proceeding to RTRM Hospital, J. P. Kalan. CW1 specifically stated that he was driving his car and when they reached on the outer road of the village, one Hyundai Aura bearing registration no.DL-1CAF-8615 came from behind and gave him light flash from the car's light to overtake and he stopped his vehicle for letting the said car to overtake him but the said vehicle did not overtook him and remained behind him. CW further stated that the said vehicle again flashed light from behind to which again he parked his car to enable the said vehicle to overtake but this time the said car overtook him and stopped his Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
CC No.1633/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan Nitesh Kaushik Vs. Deepak Page 9 of 18 2026.01.20 14:44:58 +0530 car in front of his car out of which one person namely Deepak got out, who was resident of his village and grabbed him and started beating him. CW1 further stated that his friend Umesh and his mother who were sitting in his car intervened and thereafter Deepak stopped beating him and when accused went back to his vehicle he tried to crush him with his vehicle upon which he ran inside the fields to save him. CW1 further stated that it was only due to intervention of his friend Umesh and his mother who pleaded before Deepak to let him go as wife of Umesh was pregnant and thereafter, Deepak went away and he took Umesh, his wife and mother to the hospital from where he made 112 number call.
16. To corroborate his version, complainant also examined Ramo Devi as CW2 who also narrated the some facts qua the pregnancy of her daughter-in-law whereupon complainant being their neighbour took them in his car towards RTRM hospital. CW2 also stated that there was one car constantly honking from the back side and when complainant parked his vehicle, the said vehicle overtook his vehicle and stopped their vehicle and the driver of the said vehicle got out and started beating Nitesh. CW2 also stated that the said person of the said car was Deepak who was resident of their village and due to the said beatings given by Deepak, Nitesh ran into the fields. CW2 further stated that Nitesh called police no.100 but before police arrived, they proceeded to hospital. No other witness examined by the complainant in his evidence.
17. Ld. counsel for accused vehemently argued that neither the complainant has led any evidence to support the factum that the PCR call was made nor any documents have been procured to show that they ever went to hospital and that due to previous Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV Date:
CC No.1633/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan Nitesh Kaushik Vs. Deepak Page 10 of 18 AHLAWAT 2026.01.20 14:45:04 +0530 enmity between two parties, the complainant has falsely implicated the accused in the present case. Ld. counsel for accused further stated that the version of complainant should not be accepted on his face value as neither the so-called friend of complainant namely Umesh nor his wife have been examined nor any medical documents have been procured by the complainant.
18. At this point, before proceeding ahead, it is also relevant to highlight that cases in which parties are inimical with each other due to cross litigations and the same aspect was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh &Ors. vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364, wherein the position of a witness who has inimical relationship with the accused was discussed. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:
"A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth."
19. This aspect was also dealt by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Madhusudan Sahu & Ors. 2007 Cri LJ 440 wherein it was held as under:
"It is to be borne in mind that the parties involved in the case are inimical to each other and large number of litigations is going on between them. While the accused persons propagate the plea that because of this enmity, they have been falsely implicated, the prosecution has come up with the suggestion that the attack on P.W. 6 was carried because of the enmity. Enmity between the parties is a double-edged weapon. The effect of enmity is to be considered in the case according to the circumstance and evidence available on record. What is settled is that once enmity exists between the parties, the evidence adduced by the parties are to be scrutinized with great care Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT CC No.1633/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan Nitesh Kaushik Vs. Deepak Page 11 of 18 AHLAWAT Date:
2026.01.20 14:45:09 +0530 and caution and every mitigating circumstance has to be given importance."
20. Similar observation was made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar vs. State Crl. Appeal No. 886 of 2012 decided on 3rd March 2012 wherein, the Hon'ble Court has held that if parties are on inimical terms, then each and every piece of evidence available on record has to be scrutinized and analysed carefully.
21. In the present case, CW1 specifically alleged that accused after getting out of his car started beating him and the said fact is also corroborated by the other witness namely CW2Ramdo Devi, who is the neighbour of the complainant and a resident of the saem village as that of the accused. CW2 also emphatically stated that as soon as the accused came out of his car, he started giving beatings to the complaint and that it is was only upon the intervention of his son umesh and herself that accused stopped giving beatings to the complainant.
22. The mere fact that the parties are embroiled in a civil dispute does not confer any licence upon either of them to commit criminal acts against the other. It is not in dispute that both sides have initiated proceedings against each other; however, every alleged criminal act is required to be examined and adjudicated independently on the basis of its own evidence and merits. It is a settled proposition of law that where parties are inimically disposed, the evidence led by them must be scrutinised with greater care and circumspection, keeping in view the possibility that such enmity may give rise to a tendency to falsely implicate the opposite party. Nevertheless, inimical relations by themselves neither establish guilt nor warrant outright rejection of the prosecution case, and the truthfulness of the allegations must ultimately be tested on the touchstone of Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT CC No.1633/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan Nitesh Kaushik Vs. Deepak Page 12 of 18 AHLAWAT Date:
2026.01.20 14:45:15 +0530 credible and cogent evidence.
23. Furthermore, as per Section 319 IPC, "Hurt" means causing bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person. Thus, the victim must have suffered any one of the following:
i. Bodily pain - physical pain, even if temporary or minor;
ii. Disease - any pathological condition caused by the act of the accused;
iii. Infirmity - inability of an organ to function normally, which may be temporary or permanent (including shock, unconsciousness, or mental infirmity).
24. The argument of counsel for accused, that no medical document supports the version of the complainant as no such incident happened cannot be accepted as it is a settled law now as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Singh v. State of Bihar , CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 606 OF 2021, that " It may be that there might not be any serious injuries and/or visible injuries, the hospital might not have issued the injury report. However, production of an injury report for the offence under Section 323 IPC is not a sine qua non for establishing the case for the offence under Section 323 IPC".
25. Thus, it is a settled law now that medical documents are not mandatory for Section 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt) when the injured witness's testimony inspires confidence and stands corroborated by other evidence. In the instant case, there is no justifiable ground to disbelieve the testimony of the complainant, examined as CW-1, who has categorically deposed that the accused had assaulted him. It is well settled that every act of assault does not necessarily result in visible or externally apparent injuries, particularly in cases involving slapping or simple Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
CC No.1633/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan Nitesh Kaushik Vs. Deepak Page 13 of 18 2026.01.20 14:45:22 +0530 manhandling, which may not always find reflection in medical records. It is an admitted position that the complainant was not medically examined; however, the same has been duly explained by the complainant, who stated that although he was called to the hospital by the police, the Investigating Officer informed him that the nature of injuries allegedly sustained by him did not warrant preparation of an MLC. A layperson cannot be expected to be conversant with the technical or procedural nuances relating to medical examination, and therefore, the absence of medical evidence, in the given facts and circumstances, cannot be held to be fatal or prejudicial to the case of the complainant. More so, when the version of the complainant stands corroborated by an independent witness, who, despite belonging to the same village as the accused, has supported the factum of assault, thereby lending further credibility to the prosecution case.
26. In the present case, the injuries as sustained by the victim is duly established and accused person has not been able to demonstrate the injuries or the allegation of his beating upon complainant was not due to his actions. Some convincing and cogent ground and evidence was required from the side of defence to discard the evidence of the injured. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the victim/injured witness or falsify the claim of his injuries being given by the accused person. Thereby the offence punishable under section 323 IPC is made out against the accused person.
27. Furthermore, for offence of section 341 IPC, complainant must prove that wronged person had a right to proceed in a particular way and that accused obstructed or prevented the wronged person from proceeding there and the accused voluntarily obstructed the Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT CC No.1633/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan Nitesh Kaushik Vs. Deepak Page 14 of 18 AHLAWAT Date:
2026.01.20 14:45:29 +0530 wronged person. Further, it must be established that complainant/ wronged person had a right to use it.
In the present case, the allegation against the accused persons is that he gave beatings to the victim by grabbing him out of his car. However, it is victim/complainant CW1's OWN version that he went inside the fields to save himself. Similarly, CW2 also stated in his cross examination that complainant ran into the field to save himself. Although it is the version of the victim that accused blocked his car by stopping his car in front of his car however, there is no specific material to show that victim was prevented from proceeding in a particular way by the accused person. Thus, in the absence of any evidence to the effect that victim was prevented from proceeding in a particular way by the accused person voluntarily, no offence u/s 341 IPC is made out against accused person.
28. The second set of allegations is against accused Deepak, with the allegations that on the same date, he criminally intimidated and threatened the complainant and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Following are the essentials of the offence of Criminal Intimidation as defined under section 503 IPC:-
a. It must be a positive act of causing threat to a person;
b. It must be directed towards his person, property or reputation;
c. It must be directed towards the person or reputation or property of anyone in whom the victim is interested;
d. It must be done with the intention of causing alarm to such a person; or e. It must cause him to do something which he is not legally bound to do or refrain him from doing something which he is legally bound to do.
Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT CC No.1633/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan Nitesh Kaushik Vs. Deepak Page 15 of 18 AHLAWAT Date:
2026.01.20 14:45:34 +0530
29. Let this Court examine the fact whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused person u/s 506 IPC or not. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, mere words do not constitute an offence u/s 506 IPC against accused and there should be evidence to show that acts, gesture or words of the accused have caused alarm to the complainant to prove an offence u/s 506 IPC against her. Reliance in this regard, can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court on section 506 IPC in Manik Taneja & Anr. vs State of Karnataka & Anr, (2015) 7 SCC 423. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: -
"It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of 'Criminal intimidation'. The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant.'
30. In the present case, prosecution examined CW1 and CW2 for proving the offence punishable under section 506 IPC. CW1 stated in his testimony that accused person after beating him and while leaving threatened him but CW2 never stated anything qua any sort of threats being issued by the accused to the complainant. In the present case, the complainant examined as CW-1 has made a bald and omnibus allegation that the accused had threatened him; however, his testimony is conspicuously silent with respect to the nature, content, or manner of the alleged threat. It is a settled proposition of law that, in order to attract the offence of criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 IPC, the prosecution is required to establish that the accused issued a specific threat of injury to the person, reputation, or property of the complainant, Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date: CC No.1633/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan Nitesh Kaushik Vs. Deepak Page 16 of 18 AHLAWAT 2026.01.20 14:45:39 +0530 with the intent to cause alarm, and that such threat was of such a nature as to actually cause alarm in the mind of the complainant. Mere use of the word "threatened," without disclosing the exact words, the nature of the threat, or the resultant alarm, does not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 506 IPC. In the absence of any particulars regarding the alleged threat, the testimony of CW1 remains vague and unsubstantiated and, therefore, falls short of the settled legal requirement to sustain a conviction under Section 506 IPC. Thus, in the absence of any evidence to the effect that no alarm has been caused to the complainant due to the threat extended by the accused, no offence u/s 506 IPC is made out against the accused Deepak.
CONCLUSION
31. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the complainant evidence, both oral and documentary, including the surrounding circumstances leads to the only conclusion that accused person gave beatings to the complainant and loopholes pointed out by them are not sufficient to disbelieve the complainant case. The complainant has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubts all the ingredients of section 323 IPC. However, reasonable doubt has been created in favour of accused Deepak as the complainant has not been able to prove the ingredients of section 341 and 506 IPC.
32. In the light of above discussions, the Court is of the view that complainant has been successful in establishing the guilt of the accused person and accordingly accused Deepak s/o Jai Singh is is hereby convicted for offence punishable u/s 323 IPC only while acquitted for offence punishable u/s 341/506 IPC.
Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2026.01.20 CC No.1633/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan Nitesh Kaushik Vs. Deepak Page 17 of 18 14:45:45 +0530
33. Let the convict be heard separately on the quantum of sentence.
Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open court ABHINAV by ABHINAV AHLAWAT on 20.01.2026 in the presence AHLAWAT Date: 2026.01.20 14:45:51 of the accused persons. +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/20.01.2026
This judgment contains 18 pages and each page has been signed Digitally signed by me.
by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV Date:
AHLAWAT 2026.01.20 14:45:56 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/20.01.2026 CC No.1633/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan Nitesh Kaushik Vs. Deepak Page 18 of 18