Delhi District Court
State vs Inteyaz@Kalu on 20 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Mr. Bhavaya Karhail, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 467/2024
FIR No. -: 219/2023
Police Station -: Jamia Nagar
Section(s) -: 363 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
MOHD. INTIYAZ @ KALU
S/o Sh. Mohd. Mumtaz
R/o H. No. P-227, Near Subra Public School,
Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi.
...Accused
1. Name of Complainant :- Shamsheeda
2. Name of Accused Person :- Mohd. Intiyaz @ Kalu
3. Offence complained of or :- 363 IPC
proved
4. Plea of Accused Person :- NOT GUILTY
5. Date of Commission of :- 20.05.2023
offence
6. Date of Filing of case :- 12.01.2024
7. Date of Pronouncement :- 20.04.2026
8. Final Order :- Acquittal
Digitally signed
by BHAVAYA
BHAVAYA KARHAIL
KARHAIL Date:
2026.04.20
16:44:55 +0500
FIR No. 219/2023 State v. Mohd. Intiyaz @ Kalu Page 1 of 7
JUDGMENT
1. Present FIR was registered on the written complaint of Complainant Shamsheeda who claimed that her 14 years minor daughter Ikra had left her house on 20.05.2023. She further expressed suspicion on Intiyaz @ Kalu as the person who had enticed her daughter out of her guardianship. Accordingly, FIR u/s 363 IPC was registered. During the course of investigation, complainant herself produced her daughter Ikra in police station. Statement u/s 164 CrPC of victim was recorded and thereafter present accused Intiyaz was apprehended.
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable U/s 363 IPC was filed against accused Intiyaz @ Kalu. He was consequently summoned. On appearance, a copy of chargesheet was supplied to him in terms of section 207 of CrPC. Perusal of file reveals that charge for commission of offences u/s 363 IPC was framed against both the Accused on 22.04.2025 which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the Accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW1 :- Ikra (victim in the present case) Digitally signed by BHAVAYA BHAVAYA KARHAIL Date: KARHAIL 2026.04.20 16:45:01 FIR No. 219/2023 State v. Mohd. Intiyaz @ Kalu Page 2 of 7 +0500 PW2 :- Shamsheeda (Complainant in the present case) PW3 :- SI Ram Kishore (1st IO in the present case) PW4 :- ASI Omender Singh (IO in the present case) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW2/A :- Complaint.
Ex. PW3/1 :- Tehrir.
Ex. PW4/1 :- Copy of statement u/s 164 CrPC.
4. PW-1/Ms. Ikra deposed that on 20.05.2023, he had gone to Nizamuddin dargah along-with Arman @ Kalu @ Imteyaz.
Accused had not taken PW1 from his house or that he had not enticed him to leave his home. Accused has done nothing wrong to PW1 and after some time, he returned back to my house and police had produced PW1 before the court where my statement was recorded u/s 164 CrPC in which he had stated the same facts.
5. PW-2/Ms. Shamsheeda deposed that she had 4 girls and 2 boys. Her daughter namely Ikra aged about 14 years had left the house on 20.05.2023. PW2 had searched her and she could not find her in anywhere. PW2 had a doubt that accused Imteyaz had taken her daughter or enticed her daughter to go with him from her house. PW2 had given his written statement to the police which is Ex. PW2/A and after that the FIR of this case was registered. PW2 Digitally signed by BHAVAYA BHAVAYA KARHAIL KARHAIL Date:
2026.04.20 16:45:05 +0500 FIR No. 219/2023 State v. Mohd. Intiyaz @ Kalu Page 3 of 7 had not seen accused Imteyaz while taking or enticing from her house.
6. PW-3/SI Ram Kishore deposed that on 22.05.2023, he was posted at PS Jamia Nagar as SI. On the same day, PW3 was posted in emergency duty. The complainant Shamsheeda arrived at PS and gave written complaint to him that her daughter aged 14 years named Ikra has left the house without informing anyone on 20.05.2023 at around 05.00 PM. In the complaint, the complainant had also taken the name of Imtiyaz @ Kalu expressing her suspicion that he has kidnapped her daughter after enticing her. After preparing tehrir on the basis of complaint, PW3 forwarded the same to DO for the purpose of registering FIR. Tehrir is Ex. PW3/1. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was marked to ASI Omender Singh.
7. PW-4/ASI Omender Singh deposed that on 22.05.2023, he was marked investigation of the present case. The complainant had given PW4 photographs of her missing daughter. PW4 got the photos uploaded on zipnet and WT message regarding the incident. On 24.05.2023, complainant herself came to the PS along-with her missing daughter. She claimed that her daughter was found at Nizamuddin dargah. PW4 got the victim medically examined. The victim and her mother, i.e., complainant refused to undergo internal examination. The victim was kept at 'one stop center' for one night. The next day, her statement u/s 164 CrPC was got recorded by Ld. JMFC. Upon application, PW4 received copy of statement u/s 164 CrPC, same is Ex. PW4/1. In her statement, Digitally signed by BHAVAYA BHAVAYA KARHAIL Date: KARHAIL 2026.04.20 16:45:10 +0500 FIR No. 219/2023 State v. Mohd. Intiyaz @ Kalu Page 4 of 7 victim claimed that she had voluntarily accompanied Arman @ Imtiyaz @ Kalu. She claimed that she was not victim of any sexual assault. Victim was made to undergo counselling as per rules. Later on, she was shifted to CWC from where her mother took her custody. On the basis of complainant's statement, accused was bound down at his house. Accused was correctly identified by PW4. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
8. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the Accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of Accused was recorded without oath on 17.04.2026 under section 313 CrPC in which he stated that he is innocent and was falsely implicated in the present case. Further, accused stated that he does not want to lead any defence evidence and matter was listed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
9. 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.
10. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that there is sufficient material on record to convict the Accused for the said offences.
Digitally signedBHAVAYA by BHAVAYA KARHAIL KARHAIL Date: 2026.04.20 16:45:14 +0500 FIR No. 219/2023 State v. Mohd. Intiyaz @ Kalu Page 5 of 7
11. Per contra, the Ld. LADC for the Accused has argued that the state has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
12. In order to prove allegations u/s 363 IPC, the prosecution must prove:
i) Accused took or enticed minor victim namely Ikra.
ii) Victim Ikra was in the keeping of her lawful guardian.
iii) The act of accused was without the consent of lawful guardian.
13. To prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, proseuction first examined Victim Iqra. She deposed that on 20.05.2023, she had gone to Nizamuddin Dargah alongwith Intiyaz @ Kalu. She further claimed that accused had not enticed her in any manner to leave her home. She further claimed that accused had done nothing wrong. Thus, victim did not support the case of prosecution in any manner.
14. PW2 Shamsheeda, i.e., complainant and mother of victim claimed that on 20.05.2023, her minor daughter named Iqra got missing. She further claimed that she had suspicion on accused Intiyaz that he had enticed her daughter. However, in cross examination, she disclosed that she had not seen accused enticing her daughter in any manner and that she had named accused in the Digitally signed by BHAVAYA BHAVAYA KARHAIL KARHAIL Date:
FIR No. 219/2023 State v. Mohd. Intiyaz @ Kalu Page 6 of 7 2026.04.20 16:45:17 +0500 complaint on suspicion only. Prosecution further examined PW3/SI Ram Kishore and PW-4/IO/ASI Omender Singh.
15. None of the prosecution witness could directly present any evidence to substantiate the allegation that accused had enticed victim out of the guardianship of complainant Shamsheeda. Shamsheeda herself claimed that she had named accused in the complaint on the basis of suspicion only. Thus, the only witness to the act of enticing was victim Iqra herself. Iqra in her testimony clearly exonerated accused while claiming that she herself had accompanied accused on her own volition. The victim was not recovered per se from the accused. Victim had herself reached her home. There is no direct evidence to prove enticement by accused. Accordingly, the ingredients of section 363 IPC are not fulfilled and thus the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
16. Resultantly, accused Intiyaz @ Kalu S/o Mohd. Mumtaz is acquitted of offence u/s 363 IPC.
Announced in open court on 20.04.2026 in the presence of the Accused.
The judgment contains 7 pages and each page have been signed by the undersigned.
BHAVAYA Digitally signed by
BHAVAYA KARHAIL
KARHAIL Date: 2026.04.20
16:45:21 +0500
(BHAVAYA KARHAIL)
JMFC-08, South East District,
Saket Courts, Delhi,20.04.2026
FIR No. 219/2023 State v. Mohd. Intiyaz @ Kalu Page 7 of 7