Delhi District Court
State vs Dharamveer@Beera on 11 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09 (SOUTH-
WEST) DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Dharamveer @ Beera etc.
FIR No : 167/2019
U/s : 186/323/332/353/34/506 IPC
P.S. : Jafarpur Kalan
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020179882021
2. Date of commission of offence : 09.10.2019
3. Date of institution of the case : 06.04.2021
4. Name of the complainant : Ct. Bandang Mongba
5. Name of accused, parentage & : 1. Dharamveer @ Beera
address S/o Satya Narayan
2. Rishipal
S/o Shri Bhagwan
3. Manish @ Monu
S/o Umed Singh
All R/o Village
Bakkargarh, Jaffarpur
Kalan, Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : 186/323/332/353/506/34
IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 11.08.2025
Argued by:- Mr. Parvez Alam, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. Manish Kadiyan, Ld. Counsel for accused
persons.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 1 of 28 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.11
15:12:24
+0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 09.10.2019 at about 09:45 PM at Toll Tax Bakkargarh, Delhi, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention assaulted and obstructed public servants namely Ct.
Lunsokhung and Ct. Bandang Mongba with the intent to deter them from discharging their duties as such public servants, who were discharging their duties as public servant. Further, accused persons voluntarily caused hurt to public servants namely Ct. Lunsokhung and Ct. Bandang Mongba and also caused hurt to injured persons Sanjay and Surender. Further, accused persons committed criminal intimidation by threatening the abovenamed victims to kill them with intent to cause alarm to them and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 186/323/324/332/353/34 of IPC, for which FIR no.167/2019 was registered at the police station Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused persons was filed. The Ld. Predecessor of this court took the cognizance against the accused persons and summons were issued to the accused persons. On their appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to them in terms of section 207 Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 2 of 28 ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.11 15:12:30 +0530 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, charge under Sections 186/323/332/353/34 of IPC was framed against the accused on 20.04.2023. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Here it is pertinent to mention that the present judgment pertains to accused Dharamveer @ Beera, Rishipal and Manish @ Monu only as accused Sumit was declared proclaimed person vide order dated 10.04.2023.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:-
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 Surender Singh PW-2 Sanjay PW-3 ASI Jai Bhagwan PW-4 Retd. Commandant Bandang Mongba PW-5 Ct. Lonsokhung PW-6 SI Virender Singh PW-7 Dr. Narender Kumar Shulania DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A MLC of Surender Singh Ex.PW2/A MLC of Sanjay Ex.PW3/A Permission u/S 195 Cr. P.C. Ex.PW3/B Notice u/S 91 Cr. P.C. for providing CCTV footage Ex.PW3/C Reply to notice Ex.PW3/D Notice u/S 91 Cr. P.C. for providing attendance register Ex.PW4/A Statement of Ct. Bandang Mangba Ex.PW5/B Attendance register Ex.PW6/A DD no.30A Ex.PW6/B Tehrir Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 3 of 28 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.08.11 15:12:36 +0530 Ex.PW6/C Seizure memo qua Scorpio car Ex.PW6/D Arrest memo qua accused Dharamveer Ex.PW6/E Arrest memo qua accused Manish Ex.PW6/F Arrest memo qua accused Rishipal Ex.PW6/G Arrest memo qua accused Sumit Ex.PW6/H Personal search memo qua accused Dharamveer Ex.PW6/I Personal search memo qua accused Manish Ex.PW6/J Personal search memo qua accused Rishipal Ex.PW6/K Personal search memo qua accused Sumit Ex.PW6/L Disclosure statement qua accused Dharamveer Ex.PW6/M Disclosure statement qua accused Manish Ex.PW6/N Disclosure statement qua accused Rishipal Ex.PW6/O Disclosure statement qua accused Sumit Ex.PW7/1 MLC no.4905/19 qua Ct. Bandang Mongba Ex.PW7/2 MLC no.4905/19 qua Ct. Lunsokhung ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex.A1 FIR no.167/2019 alongwith Certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.A2 DD no.39A dated 02.02.2019 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
PW1 Surender Singh deposed that he had a grocery shop near MCD Toll Tax village Bakkargarh and at around 09:40 pm when he was returning from his shop, he saw five persons belonging to his village were coming from side of toll tax in a black Scorpio Car bearing no.HR-26CM-7952. He stated that he got to know from the police officials that they were coming after having a fight with police officials and toll tax employees. He further stated that accused Dharamveer, Manish, Rishipal and Sumit, they all belonged to his village.Digitally signed by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 4 of 28 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.11 15:12:41 +0530 The witness correctly identified the accused persons present before the court and his MLC no. 4902 as Ex.PW1/A. As PW1 did not support the case of prosecution on material facts, the Ld, APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein he denied the suggestion that accused persons came to him and gave beating to him. He further stated that he took the police to the spot and police took him along with Sanjay and Nagaland Police Officials for their medical RTRM hospital. The witness failed to identify the photograph of offending vehicle. In the cross-examination, he stated that on the next date of the incident some police officials came to his shop and asked him to give statement regarding the incident which had happened one day prior. He further stated that he did not see the incident himself.
6. PW2 Sanjay deposed that he used to work with MEP Company Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. as a helper and on the day of incident, he was posted at the spot as a toll tax employee. He further stated that on that day, some unknown person came at the spot and refused to gave toll tax and they also gave him beating when he objected to the same. Thereafter, they ran from the spot. He further stated that he gave his statement u/S 161 Cr.PC to the Police and his medical examination was done at RTRM Hospital vide MLC no.4901 Ex.PW2/A. As PW2 did not support the case of prosecution on material facts, the Ld, APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross- examination, wherein he denied the suggestion that all the accused persons came to him and gave beating to him and Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 5 of 28 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.11 15:12:47 +0530 also threatened him that, they would kill him if he made any complaint to the police. He further stated that he took the police to the spot and police took him along with Surender and Nagaland Police officials. The witness failed to identify the accused persons. In the cross-examination, he stated that on that day, CCTV camera on the toll plaza were working properly.
7. PW3 ASI Jai Bhagwan deposed that the investigation of the present case was marked to him on 29.09.2020 and during investigation, he obtained permission u/S 195 Cr. P. C. Ex.PW3/A against all accused persons from concerned authority/ officer. He stated that he also served notice u/S 91 Cr. P. C. to the Manager, MEP Company, Toll Tax Tikri Zone for providing CCTV footage of 09.10.2019 between 09:30 pm to 10:00 pm Ex.PW3/B and the abovesaid company gave reply to the said notice Ex.PW3/C. He further stated that he also served notice u/S 91A Cr. P. C. to the Manager of MEP Company, Toll Tax Tikri Zone for providing the attendance register who were working on 09.10.2019 Ex.PW3/D and he also received reply to the abovesaid notice. He further stated that after completion of investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet before the concerned court. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not remember on what date, he moved the application before concerned authority for obtaining permission u/S 195 Cr. P. C. and the said application was not prepared by him. He further stated that on his request, one SI prepared the abovesaid application but he did not remember his name and he did not mention about the said fact in the charge-sheet. He Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 6 of 28 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.11 15:12:53 +0530 further stated that he did not know whether the CCTV camera was working at the spot on the date of incident and he did not investigate anything regarding the management of attendance register of the abovesaid company during the investigation.
8. PW4 Retd. Commandant Bandang Mongba deposed that on
10.10.2019, he was posted at J. P. Kalan as Commandant, Nagaland Armed Forces and around 09:40 pm, 3-4 persons came in a black Scorpio car and started quarreling with Toll Officials and he alongwith his colleague namely Lonsokhung went there but they all started quarreling with him also. He further stated that they caught hold him from his collar and tried to snatch his gun and in the meanwhile they hit on his right hand with chair due to which he sustained injuries and thereafter, they fled away from there. He further stated that the patrolling police party which was passing by saw them and came there and he was got medially examined and his statement was recorded as Ex.PW4/A. The witness correctly idenntified the accused persons Dharamvir @ Beera, Rishipal and Manish @ Monu and told that they hit him on that day and he identified the photographs of the offending car. He further stated that he could not tell as to which specific injury was given by which accused person by using chair. As PW4 did not support the case of prosecution on material facts, the Ld, APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein he stated that accused persons also threatened him to kill. In the cross-examination, he stated that he was posted in Delhi in the month of August- September 2019 and in their company around 150 officials Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 7 of 28 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.08.11 15:12:58 +0530 were posted in Delhi and 12 officials were posted at Bakarghar, Toll Tax J. P. Kalan but he could not tell the name of those 12 officials. He further stated that he was not aware about the place of posting of said 12 officials and there was no fix timings of their duty at Bakargarh Toll Tax. He further stated that their duty was mentioned in register kept with Platoon and the writer of the platoon used to mark their attendance but he did not sign anywhere to mark his attendance. He further stated that he did not remember the name of that writer who used to assign the duties at that time and their duty starts from 04:00 pm onwards and before that the private security guards look after the work. He further stated that he was taken for medical examination by Delhi Police when he had already reached at his room at PS J. P. Kalan on the next date of incident at about 03:00 - 04:00 am as he was having pain in his right arm. He further stated that he did not know any person by the name of Sanjay who used to work at Toll Plaza and he did not know any other employee of Toll Plaza despite working there for about three months. He further stated that he was aware as per their SOP they had to report of any incident at their duty place to their superior officials or to the local police but he did not report of the incident to his superior officials. He further stated that he called PCR from his mobile no.9383045232 and informed the police that some private persons were quarreling there and to send some police personnel at the spot. He further stated that police came to the spot in a very short time and CCTV cameras were installed in or around the Toll Tax and those CCTV cameras were in working condition on the day of incident. He further stated that police recorded his Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 8 of 28 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.08.11 15:13:05 +0530 statement after their arrival at the Toll and he left the place as soon as his duty hours got over. He further stated that police officials went from the spot before his duty hours got over and police recorded his statement in Hindi but never clarified / explained to him what was written. After seeing the site plan, the witness stated that the document was not prepared in his presence. He further stated that police never seized the clothes worn by him on the day of incident and on the day of incident, there were 10-12 persons present in the Toll Plaza but the police had not interrogated any other person except him in his presence on that day. He further stated that he did not know whether the police officer had taken any statement of his friend namely Lonsokhung either on the date of incident or any day thereafter.
9. PW5 Ct. Lonsokhung deposed that on 10.10.2019, he alongwith Ct. Band Dang Mongba posted at Bakargarh Toll Tax from 04:00 pm to 12:00 am and on that day at about 09:40 pm, one black Scorpio car bearing registration no.HR-26CM-7952 came at the Toll Tax in which 4-5 persons were sitting and all the persons started quarreling with Toll employee. He further stated that when he and his colleague intervened then all of them started quarreling with them and they beaten his colleague Ct. Band Dang Mongba and they also caught hold him and his friend from their collar. Thereafter, they ran away towards Bakargarh Village.
He further stated that after some time, police came at the spot and the whole incident was recorded in CCTV camera. He further stated that police van took him, his colleague and Sanjay to RTRM Hospital. He further stated that IO also Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 9 of 28 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.08.11 15:13:13 +0530 recorded his statement u/S 161 Cr. P. C. during investigation. The witness correctly identified the photographs of scorpio and all accused persons present in the court. In the cross-examination, he stated that IO did not seize CCTV camera/footage in his presence and did not record statement of any public person/ employee of toll who were present there in his presence. He further stated that accused persons quarreled with the Toll Employees but he did not know exact reason by which the accused persons quarrel with toll employee Sanjay. He further stated that he did not know the distance between Toll Tax from the place of our camp where they were residing and his duty at the Toll Plaza was to provide security to the toll staff and the money collected there and for the same they used to roam in and around the Toll Plaza. He further stated that there were usually 2-3 toll employee present at the Toll Tax daily but he did not know their names despite the fact that he remained posted there for a period of four months. He further stated that one person, out of 2-3 persons, collected the cash and issued toll tax receipt but he did not know what work was done by other employee. He further stated that adjacent to the toll tax there were many shops out of them, one wine shop was there and in the evening people were gathered there. He further stated that he did not know the person whose name was Sanjay, who was working there. He further stated that during his duty at Bakargarh Toll Plaza he never met any Sanjay, who was working at said Toll and he did not know the name of employee who made 100 number call. He further stated that he and his colleague did not make 100 number call and did not know at what time police came to the spot and till Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 10 of 28 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.08.11 15:13:21 +0530 what time they remained there. He further stated that IO recorded his statement at PS J. P. Kalan and he could not read or write Hindi language and IO did not explain him his statement u/S 161 Cr. P. C. He further stated that on the date of incident after completing his duty, he directly go to his barrack where their battalion resides. He further stated that he did not know at what time police official came at their barrack to take him to hospital and if any incident was happened during his duty, they intimate the same to their department but he did not give any complaint / application / intimation regarding the said incident to his department.
10. PW6 SI Virender Singh Yadav deposed that on 09.10.2019, he received DD no.30A Ex.PW6/A and thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Rajesh went to the spot where they met with Sanjay and on duty Ct. Bandang Mongba and Ct.
Lonsokhung (Nagaland Armed Police). He further stated that Sanjay narrated him the whole incident and thereafter, he and Ct. Rajesh apprehended accused persons near the Toll Tax. He further stated that during interrogation, accused persons told their names as Dharamvir, Manish, Rishipal and Sumit and one of their associates namely Monu ran away from the spot. Thereafter, he, Sanjay, Surender and two Nagaland Police Officials alongwith accused persons went to the RTRM hospital. He further stated that he recorded statement of Sanjay and Ct. Bandang Mongba on the spot, on the basis of which he prepared tehrir Ex.PW6/B and got the FIR registered through Ct. Rajesh. He further stated that he prepared the site plan Ex.PW4/X1 at the instance of Sanjay and during investigation, he seized the Scorpio car bearing Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 11 of 28 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.11 15:13:38 +0530 registration no.HR-26CM-7952 black colour vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/C and arrested accused persons namely Dharamvir, Manish, Rishipal and Sumit on the spot near the toll tax vide arrest memos Ex.PW6/D, Ex.PW6/E, Ex.PW6/F and Ex.PW6/G, conducted their their personal search vide personal search memos Ex.PW6/H, Ex.PW6/I, Ex.PW6/J and Ex.PW6/K and recorded their disclosure statements Ex.PW6/L, Ex.PW6/M, Ex.PW6/N and Ex.PW6/O. Thereafter, they left the spot and reached at PS. He further stated that the whole incident was recorded in CCTV installed at Bakkargarh Toll Tax and he served notice u/S 91 Cr. P. C. to the Manager at Head Office, Tikri Border for providing the CCTV footage. He further stated that he produced the accused persons before concerned court and concerned court sent them to JC. He further stated that he tried to search accused Monu but all in vain and he also recorded statements of witnesses u/S 161 Cr. P.C. and thereafter, he was transferred from PS. The witness correctly identified the accused persons present before the court. In the cross-examination, he stated that he received DD no.30A at 10:00 to 10:15 pm regarding quarrel and he reached at the spot at about 10:30 pm on my personal car no.DL-9CAP-5001. He further stated that when he reached at the spot, he found four persons i.e. Sanjay, Surender and two officials of Nagaland Police. He further stated that he started interacting with Sanjay before interacting with Nagaland Police officials. He further stated that he remained at the spot for about two hours and no other persons apart from the abovementioned persons were present there and regular traffic was flowing on the road. He further stated that he Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 12 of 28 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.08.11 15:13:45 +0530 recorded statement of all the abovesaid four persons and he arrested the accused persons about 500 meters ahead of Toll Tax. He further stated that when he arrested the accused persons, Ct. Rajesh and other PCR staff were present there and there were three persons in PCR. He further stated that he did not obtain the signature of Sanjay on site plan as the same was prepared at his instance. He further stated that he did not obtain the duty roster (attendance register) of Nagaland Armed forces and after 2-3 days, he gave notice u/S 91 Cr. P. C. to the Manager of Toll Booth to preserve the CCTV footage of the incident. He further stated that he placed on record notice u/S 91 Cr. P. C. which he served upon Manager Toll Tax to preserve the CCTV footage. He further stated that he did not remember the exact time when he took the injured to hospital and after medical examination, he alongwith Surender, Sanjay and two Nagaland Police officials namely Ct. Bandang Mongba and Ct. Lonsokhung came at the spot from hospital. He further stated that he did not remember the exact time when he returned to the spot and when he left the spot, the abovesaid Nagaland Armed Forces officials present there but he did not seize the uniform of any Nagaland police official. He further stated that he did not know who made the call at 100 number and when he enquired who made 100 number call, Sanjay told him that he made the call.
11. PW7 Dr. Narender Kumar Shulania deposed that on 10.10.2019, patients namely Ct. Bandang Mongba Aotuba, Ct. Lunsokhung, Sanjay and Surender brought up in hospital for medical examination and they were examined vide MLC Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 13 of 28 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.08.11 15:13:51 +0530 no.4905/19, 4906/19, 4901/19 and 4902/19, Ex.PW7/1, Ex.PW7/2, Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW1/A, which were prepared under his supervision by Junior Resident. In the cross- examination, he stated that he did not give treatment to any of the abovesaid patient and it was under his supervision but he could not tell the name of the doctor who examined the said patients.
12. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, remaining in the prosecution list were dropped and the formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with. No other PW was left to be examined, hence, P.E was closed.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
13. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused persons to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, the statement of the accused persons were recorded on 24.10.2025 without oath under section 281 r/w 313 CrPC, wherein they all stated that they were innocent as they were not present at the spot and they had been falsely implicated in the present case. They further stated that they did not want to lead defence evidence.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVFIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 14 of 28 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.08.11 15:13:58 +0530 FINAL ARGUMENTS
14. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
15. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be punished for the said offences.
16. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be acquitted for the said offences.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
17. Before embarking upon the appreciation of evidences, it would be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of IPC for which the accused has faced trial:-
Digitally signed by ABHINAVFIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 15 of 28 ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.11 15:14:05 +0530 "186. Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions. -- Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
"323. - Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. It states that whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person shall be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to one year, or a fine to one thousand rupees, or both.
"332. Voluntarily causing hurt to a public person while discharging his official duty.- It reads as under: "Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public ser ant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
"353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both".
Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with punishment for criminal intimidation. Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.
18. The import of the above sections is to punish persons who create obstruction in the discharge of duties of public servants. While Section 186 IPC envisages merely voluntary obstruction, section 353 IPC lays down an additional condition that such obstruction must be caused by assaulting Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 16 of 28 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.08.11 15:14:10 +0530 or using criminal force against the public servant. In fact, the distinction between these two provisions has been clearly borne out in Durgacharan Naik & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa AIR 1966 SC 1775 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following words:-
"5. It is true that most of the allegations in this case upon which the charge under Section 353, Indian Penal Code is based are the same as those constituting the charge under Section. 186, Indian Penal Code but it cannot be ignored that Sections 186 and 353, Indian Penal Code relate to two distinct offences and while the offence under the latter section is a cognizable offence, the one under the former section is not so. The ingredients of the two offences are also distinct.
Section 186, Indian Penal Code is applicable to a case where the accused voluntarily obstructs a public servant in the discharge of his public functions but under Section 353, Indian Penal Code the ingredient of assault or use of criminal force while the public servant is doing his duty as such is necessary.
The quality of the two offences is also different. Section 186 occurs in Ch. X of the Indian Penal Code dealing with contempts of the lawful authority of public servants, while Section 353 occurs in Ch. XVI regarding the offences affecting the human body."
19. In the instant case, the court is posed with following questions for determination to adjudge the veracity of prosecution case:-
(a)whether the complainant namely PW4 Ct. Bandang Mongba and PW5 Ct. Lonsokhung were public servants at the time of alleged commission of offences in question?
(b) whether the said person was acting in discharge of their public functions assigned to them?
(c) whether any obstruction or deterrence was caused to the said persons in the discharge of their public functions by the Digitally signed FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 17 of 28 by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.11 15:14:17 +0530 act of accused persons?
(c.i) for the purpose of Section 186 IPC, whether the complaint was filed before this court u/S 195 Cr.P.C?
(c.ii) for the purpose of Section 353 IPC, whether the accused had assaulted or used any criminal force to the said person during the execution of his duties?
20. It is a paramount tenet of criminal law that every accused is presumed to be innocent and cannot be convicted unless the prosecution is able to discharge the initial onus rested upon it beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, the prosecution is under a bounden duty to prove all these points on the aforesaid standard to drive home the guilt of accused.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE & FINDINGS.
21. The allegations as per the case of prosecution against the accused persons relates to the commission of offence punishable under Sections 186/332/353/323/34/506 IPC.
22. As regards the first point, whether the complainant PW4 was a public servant at the time of alleged commission of the offence. Before the same is examined, it is to be seen as to how the alleged incident was reported whereby the criminal law was set into motion. It is stated by IO PW6 that on receiving DD no.30A Ex.PW6/A, he went to the spot where he met Sanjay (PW2) and on duty Ct. Bandang (PW4) and Ct. Lonsokhung (PW5).
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 18 of 28 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.08.11 15:14:33 +0530 Perusal of DD no.30A dated 09.10.2019 time 09:56 pm reveals that PCR call was made by one Sanjay wherein the caller had described the incident as, "caller ko 4-5 aadmiyon ne milkar mara hai, caller kheton me chup kar baitha hai uske haath vyapan hain, caller ko marne ki dhamki de rahe hain." It is evident that one caller namely Sanjay had made the said PCR call whereafter IO PW6 went to the spot where he found Sanjay (PW2) and on duty Ct. Bandang (PW4) and Ct. Lonsokhung (PW5) on the spot and after PW2 Sanjay narrated the entire incident, PW6 apprehended accused Dharamveer, Manish, Rishipal and Sumit near the Toll Tax Plaza. PW6 further stated that thereafter he alongwith all the accused persons and both complainant Ct.
PW4 and PW5 and with PW2 went to RTRM Hospital and he recorded the statement of Sanjay and Ct. Bandang Ex.PW1/A on the spot.
23. It is evident that initially the incident had allegedly happened with caller PW2 Sanjay who had made the PCR call. In his testimony PW2 stated that he was working as a helper at MEP Company Infrastructure Development Pvt Ltd and that on the date on incident he was working at the spot as a toll tax employee, when some unknown persons came at the spot and refused to pay toll and started beating him. Interestingly, PW2 failed to identify accused person during his court deposition.
24. Here, it needs to be highlighted that it the version of the prosecution case, that complainant PW4 and PW5 were present at the spot being on duty there when incident with PW2 ( PCR caller) happened and both PW4 and PW5 Digitally signed FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 19 of 28 by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.08.11 15:14:40 +0530 intervened and then the accused persons assaulted both PW4 and PW5 by obstructing them in the discharge of their official duty. After the PCR call, IO came at the spot and recorded the statement of Ct. Bandang, being the complainant in the present case.
25. Perusal of statement of Ct. Bandang Ex.PW1/A reveals that he had stated that he was posted on duty alongwith Ct. Lonsokhung at Bakkargarh Toll Tax as being a member of 3rd BNA Company Nagaland Armed Police at the PS J. P. Kalan. Complainant PW4 stated in his deposition that on 10.10.2019, he was posted at J. P. Kalan as Commandant, Nagaland Armed Forces. PW4 further stated that he was present at the Toll Plaza alongwith his colleague namely Lonsokhung (PW5) when 3-4 persons in the Scorpio car were quarrelling with Toll officials and when he alongwith PW5 went there, they started quarrelling with them also. Similarly, PW5 stated that in the year 2019, he was posted in 3 rd Battalion, Company Nagaland Armed Police and on 10.10.2019, he alongwith PW4 were present at Toll Plaza Bakkargarh when they saw 4-5 persons quarrelling with toll employees and when they intervened all of them started quarrelling with them as well.
26. In his cross-examination complainant as PW4 stated that he remained posted in Delhi till 2021 and was on duty at Bakkargarh Toll Tax for about 3-4 months from September to December 2019. Complainant PW4 further stated in his cross-examination that his duty was mentioned in the register kept with platoon where they used to mark his attendance. PW4 further admitted that writer of platoon used to mark Digitally signed FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 20 of 28 by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.11 15:14:46 +0530 their attendance. Interestingly, PW4 failed to mention the name of commandant who was performing the duty before he joined his duty on the date of incident. Similarly, PW5 stated in his cross examination that when he along with PW4 used to reach for their duty at Toll tax Bakargarh they did not sign any register for marking their attendance.
27. Apart from the complaint of complainant PW4 Ct. Bandang Mongba, there is nothing on record in the form of duty roster or transfer posting to show that complainant PW4 alongwith other constable PW5 were working as public servants at the time of alleged commission of acts by the accused persons. Also, as admitted by IO PW6 in his cross-examination that he did not obtain any duty roster/ attendance register of Nagaland Armed Forces, thereby there is nothing on record from the prosecution evidence to show that complainant PW4 was public servant being present at the time of alleged commission of offences in question.
Interestingly, even the fact that PW2 sanjay was working at the said Toll Plaza is not clearly established. During investigation IO PW3 ASI Jai Bhagwan issued notice to the Manager of MEP Company, Toll Tax Tikri Zone for providing the attendance register of all employees working there on 09.10.2019 Ex.PW3/D, however, the said Toll Company through its reply Ex.PW3/E stated that they were unable to provide the said attendance register as the register of the year 2019 was destroyed. Thereby, even the presence of the PCR caller is not established by the prosecution.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVFIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 21 of 28 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date: AHLAWAT 2025.08.11 15:14:52 +0530
28. The second issue is whether the complaint as filed by complainant PW4 was filed before this court under Section 195 Cr. P. C. At the outset, the relevant portion of Section 195 of Cr. P.C. is reproduced herein-under for reference:
"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
(1) No Court shall take cognizance--
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Penal Code, 1860, (45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;"
29. Now, it is a general condition to initiate prosecution u/s 186 IPC to see that the complaint is filed under Section 195 Cr. P. C. by the concerned public servant or his supervisor officer to whom he is subordinate. It is also not possible to bypass the requirement of Section 195 Cr. P. C. At this stage it is worthwhile to highlight the recent case of Santokh Singh Chawla v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4773, where in Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that,
33. Thus, in view of the above, the law can be summarized to the effect that there must be a complaint by the public servant whose lawful order has not been complied with. The complaint must be in writing. The provisions of Section 195 Cr. P.C. are mandatory. Non- compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and all Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 22 of 28 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.08.11 15:14:57 +0530 other consequential orders. The Court cannot assume the cognizance of the case without such complaint. In the absence of such a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio being without jurisdiction."
30. Also, as held in case of Gurucharan Singh Arora v. The State, (2002) 96 DLT 181, relevant observations of which read as under:
"5. ...In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to quote relevant portion of complaint. It reads:--
"I Sh. G.L. Mehta, Inspector, SHO, P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi in pursuance of Section'195 Cr. P.C. hereby give consent to prosecution (1) Gurcharan Singh Arora S/o Jagaj Nath Arora R/o G-29, Bali Nagar, Delhi, FIR No. 557/93, under Section186/332/353/506/34 IPC and 185 & 39/192 M.V. Act, P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi & (2) Gaurav Arora S/o gurcharan Singh Arora r/o G-29, Gali Nagar, Delhi under Section 186/332/353/506/34 IPCvide case FIR No. 557/93, P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi."
6. Section 2(d) of Cr. P.C. defines the complaint to mean any allegation made orally or in writing to a magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. It is true that no particular form is prescribed in which the complaint should be made and the substance of the complaint that is to be read. It is not necessary that it should categorise elements of the offence to be charged. It is enough that the facts alleged should constitute an offence for which the accused is charged. It does not matter even if the complainant quotes wrong Sections. The complaint is meant to put the machinery of law in motion. Whether allegations were made with a view to take action against the accused would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
7. In this case, there was nothing in the complaint quoted above to indicate that the complaint was made to the Magistrate for taking action under Section 186 IPC. Mere consent of the SHO for prosecution of the accused cannot be construed as the complaint. Further, there is Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 23 of 28 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.08.11 15:15:03 +0530 nothing on record to indicate that the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on the basis of the complaint under Section 195 Cr. P.C. Therefore, the charge under Section 186 IPC against the petitioner is not sustainable. It is needless to observe that in all such cases, the complaint should be filed by the concerned public servant with a prayer to take action against the accused and whenever such complaint under Section 195 Cr. P.C. is filed along with charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr. P.C., the Courts while taking cognizance, should also take note of such complaint, to avoid any technical objection at a later stage..."
31. In the present case, complaint under Section 195 Cr. P. C. was made by Assistant Commandant of A Coy III, NAP Battalion Wazirabad, New Delhi Ex.PW3/A. The said document was tendered in evidence in the deposition of PW3 ASI Jai Bhagwan who stated that he had obtained the permission u/S 195 Cr. P. C. Ex.PW3/A from the concerned authority / officer.
Perusal of the said document reveals that the said document is a complaint u/S 195 Cr. P. C. as signed by one officer named as Repjenyanba with the same being signed without any date. Interestingly, the said officer was not cited as a witness in the prosecution witness list nor been called as a witness in the prosecution evidence. The non-examination of the person who had given the said sanction makes the sanction being unproved which makes the circumstances under which the said sanction being obtained under the shadow of doubt giving rise to the possibility that the sanction was never obtained as per the provisions of law. Examination of the sanctioning authority is a pre-requisite to establish that the sanction was obtained after the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the material obtained Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 24 of 28 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date: AHLAWAT 2025.08.11 15:15:09 +0530 through investigation before the grant of sanction. As per settled law, grant of sanction is not an idle formality and that its validity must be proved by way of examination of sanctioning authority. Perusal of the permission u/S 195 Cr. P. C. Ex.PW3/A as obtained by the IO reveals that the same is undated nor any formal diary entry is mentioned on the said sanction which clearly brings doubt whether the said sanction was ever obtained as per the provisions through the sanctioning authority. Non-examination of the sanctioning authority goes to the root of the of prosecution case making the entire trial vitiated.
32. Proceeding to the third issue as to whether complainant was acting in discharge of his public function assigned to him at the time of incident.
As already discussed above, neither the complainant PW4 nor his colleague PW5 who were stated to be posted on duty at Bakkargarh Toll Tax Plaza has been established by producing any documentary proof such as duty roster, attendance register or posting orders establishing their presence at the spot at the relevant time, thereby oral testimony of PW4 and PW5 cannot be implicitly relied for establishing that they were present at the spot discharging function was public servant. Accordingly, when there is doubt on the presence of PW4 and PW5 being at the spot thereby the aspect of them discharging public function at the spot does not require examination. This lapse in non- establishment of complainant PW4 being a public servant at the spot of creates doubt in the entire prosecution case.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 25 of 28 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.11 15:15:14 +0530
33. Furthermore, both complainant PW4, PW2 and PW5 have stated in their testimony that there were CCTV cameras present at the said Toll Plaza, however, as stated by IO PW3 that he had served the notice Ex. PW3/B to the Manager of MEP Toll Tax Tikri Zone for providing the CCTV footage of 09.10.2019 from 9:30 pm to 10:00 pm however, as per the reply of the Manager of MCD Tikri toll Ex.PW3/C the said footage was not available with them as their system had back up of only 15 days of CCTV footage. Here it evident that IO had issued notice to the Toll Company for CCTV footage on 25.09.2020 which is about almost 11 months after the alleged incident in question.
34. At this stage, it is relevant to mention the judgment as passed by the bench of Justices Anil R. Dave, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi of the Supreme Court of India while hearing the case ofTomaso Bruno & Anr vs State Of U.P (2015), wherein it stated that, "CCTV footage was to be considered as the best piece of evidence in order to prove the presence of the accused at the crime scene and it was for the prosecution to produce such evidence. In cases of failure, serious doubts about the case of the prosecution could be welcomed. The arguments that were advanced by the prosecution, in this case, was that the onus to prove that the accused was not at the crime scene was on the accused in accordance with Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which therefore placed the burden of proving a fact within the knowledge of a person upon such person. Duly acknowledging the same, the Apex Court held that in order to invoke Section 106 of the Act of 1872 against the accused to prove his alibi, the prosecution had to establish the presence of the accused first and since the witnesses themselves had made a reference to the CCTV footage in this present case, a failure to produce the same did raise serious doubts about the prosecution's case."
35. The fact that the Investigating Officer moved an application for procuring the CCTV footage only after a delay of 11 Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 26 of 28 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date: AHLAWAT 2025.08.11 15:15:20 +0530 months from the date of incident, in itself, reflects the casual and lackadaisical approach adopted in the investigation. Such an unexplained delay not only casts doubt on the seriousness of the investigation but also creates the possibility of crucial evidence being lost, thereby affecting the fairness of the prosecution case.
36. Onto the fourth issue of whether the conduct of accused persons was such as to lead obstruction in the duties of concerned public servant i.e. PW1 Ct. Bandang Mongba and that accused persons used criminal force and voluntarily caused harm to deter him from the discharge of his official duties and caused injuries to him and PW2 Sanjay.
When the presence of the injured, other witnesses, as well as the accused at the spot is not satisfactorily established by the prosecution by way of documentary and electronic evidence despite the same being available, the very foundation of the prosecution story becomes doubtful. In such circumstances, the version of the injured regarding having sustained injuries loses its evidentiary weight and does not warrant further examination.
CONCLUSION
37. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge of Section 186/332/353/323 and section 506(II) IPC, which is the pre-requisite to convict a person under said provision. Prosecution has miserable failed to prove the basic ingredients of above offences in the Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 27 of 28 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.11 15:15:26 +0530 instant case. The inescapable conclusion is that the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt.
38. Resultantly, since the prosecution has failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused, the accused Dharamveer @ Beera, Rishipal and Manish @ Monu are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 186/323/324/332/353/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT on 11.08.2025 in the presence AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.11 of the accused. 15:15:32 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/11.08.2025 Note: - This judgment contains 28 pages and each page has been signed by me. Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.11 15:15:38 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/11.08.2025 FIR No. 167/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Dharamveer @ Beera etc. Page 28 of 28