Delhi District Court
State vs . Jitender Singh Shunty on 30 July, 2018
State vs. Jitender Singh Shunty
In the Court of Sh. Ajay Garg, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi.
State Vs. Jitender Singh Shunty
FIR No. : 101/12
U/S: 188 IPC
PS: Vivek Vihar
JUDGMENT
a) Unique ID No. of the case : 85241/16
b) Date of commission of offence : 11.04.2012
c) Date of institution of the case : 06.07.2012
d) Name of the complainant : SI Sachin Tomar
e) Name & address of the
accused : Jitender Singh Shunty
S/o. Sh. Preet Pal Singh
R/o. 85 Pratap Khand,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi.
f) Offence complained off : 188 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Final order : Acquitted
i) Arguments heard on : 19.07.2018
j) Date of Judgment : 30.07.2018
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
FIR No. 101/12 Page 1 of 6State vs. Jitender Singh Shunty
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 11.04.2012 at about 09.40 pm in front of PWD Office, Shiva Khand, Pratap Khand Road near pulia Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Vivek Vihar accused Jitender Singh Shunty had raised platform over the whole width of the road and placed the chairs over the road which is in violation of Order No. 1302/RACP/Vivek Vihar Dt. 08.04.2012. With these allegations, accused has been sent to face trial for offence punishable U/sec. 188 IPC.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s. 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the police and the accused was consequently summoned. Notice U/s.251 Cr.PC for the offence U/s. 188 IPC was served upon the accused on 15.05.2013 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
(i). PW1 Sh. Abhishek Sharma, was the Videographer, who has proved the CD, containing the video of spot, prepared by him as per the instructions of IO SI Sachin Tomar as Ex. P1.
(ii). PW2 HC Ombir Singh, was the Duty Officer, who got recorded the FIR of the present case on the basis of rukka sent by IO and proved the computerised copy of FIR as Ex. PW2/A. He also proved the endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW2/B. FIR No. 101/12 Page 2 of 6 State vs. Jitender Singh Shunty
(iii). PW3 Ct. Anoop Kumar, was the Associate Member with the IO/ complainant. He stated that on 11.04.2012 he was posted at PS Vivek Vihar and he was deputed alongwith SI Sachin Tomar for arrangements on account of elections at A Block, Jhilmil Colony. He stated that at about 09.30 pm, a phone call was received by the IO from Duty Officer for taking appropriate legal action for causing jam on road by erecting platform (Manch) by the accused Jitender Singh Shunty during election meeting of Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) being held near Gali no. 6 Jhilmil Colony. He alongwith IO reached at the spot and found that whole road was covered by placing chairs and crowd was also there due to which road was obstructed for movement. Accused Jitender Singh was addressing the crowd from the platform with the help of loudspeaker. The spot was videographed with the help of videographer. IO prepared the rukka vide Ex. PW3/A and handed over to him for registration of FIR. He got registered the case FIR on the basis of rukka and handed over the same to the IO. He also proved the copy of FIR as Ex. PW2/A. Site Plan was prepared by IO vide Ex. PW3/B.
(ii). PW4 SI Sachin Tomar, is the IO/Complainant, who deposed on the lines of complaint as well as PW3. He also proved the rukka and site plan prepared by him vide Ex. PW3/A & 3/B. He stated that he asked accused about the permission from Land Owning Agency but he could not produce the same. He identified the accused present in the court. He recorded the statement of Ct. Anoop and received the CD from videographer. He also obtained the permission u/s. 195 Cr.
PC from concerned ACP. He proved the copy of permission letter of FIR No. 101/12 Page 3 of 6 State vs. Jitender Singh Shunty public meeting as Ex. PX1 and after completing all the formalities, he filed the challan in the Court.
All the abovesaid witnesses were cross examined at length by Ld. Defence Counsel.
4. P.E. was closed vide order of the Court dated 06.06.2018 and matter was fixed for statement of accused U/s. 313 Cr. PC. During his statement, accused denied all the incriminating evidence put to him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. No defence evidence was led.
5. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
6. Findings:
The accused herein is facing trial for the offence punishable u/s. 188 IPC. As per prosecution, the accused has violated the conditions of order no. 1302/RACP/Vivek Vihar Dt. 08.04.2012 passed by ACP Vivek Vihar wherein while granting permission to the accused for holding public meeting it was specified that if the meeting is held at the road, only 1/3rd portion of the road be utilized. Though, as per the prosecution, the accused while holding meeting had covered almost the entire road by raising a platform and by placing the chairs, but there is no evidence on record to show that the said disobedience has been caused by the accused himself. Further, the total width of the road and the area covered by the accused is also not specified and merely a bald allegation is made FIR No. 101/12 Page 4 of 6 State vs. Jitender Singh Shunty that the entire road was covered. Even the site plan is silent in this regard. Further no public witness who were attending the said meeting is joined in the investigation, though easily available. Even, otherwise as per Section 188 IPC, disobedience of any order promulgated by public servant is punishable only in case if such disobedience causes or tends to cause any obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person or causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray. However, no such evidence has been led in this case to show that by covering the excess width of the road any obstruction or injury was caused to any person.
A perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution shows that none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed that they had seen the accused or any of his servants / agents causing such disobedience. The possibility of claim of the accused that due to political vendetta, someone had raised the platform and placed the chairs with the ulterior motive of falsely implicating him in the present case, being true, cannot be ruled out.
Therefore, the court holds that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the accused Jitender Singh Shunty is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.FIR No. 101/12 Page 5 of 6
State vs. Jitender Singh Shunty Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open court
on 30th July, 2018
AJAY
Digitally signed by AJAY GARG
Location: Court NO.59,
Shahdara District, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi
GARG Date: 2018.07.31 14:46:29
+0530
(Ajay Garg)
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
District Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.FIR No. 101/12 Page 6 of 6