Delhi District Court
State vs Poonam Aggaral on 9 October, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAURABH GOYAL, JMFC-01, SOUTH WEST
DISTRICT DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. : Poonam Aggarwal
E FIR No : 280/2019
U/s : 453, 34, 506 & 201 IPC
P.S. : PALAM VILLAGE
CNR No. : DLSW020490492019
1. Criminal Case No. : 16211/2019
2. Date of commission of offence : 22.07.2019
3. Date of institution of the case : 18.09.2019
4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name of accused & parentage : Poonam Aggarwal S/o Sh. Khem
Chand
6. Offence complained or proved : U/S 453, 506 & 201 R/W 34 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 04.10.2025
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of final order : 09.10.2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present : Sh. Vikas Kharb Ld. APP for state.
Accused in person with Ld. LAC Sh. Arvind Aggarwal.
FIR NO. 280/2019 St. Vs. Poonam Aggarwal
2
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I seek to dispose of the case of the prosecution filed against the accused Poonam Aggarwal for having committed the offence punishable U/S 453/506 & 201 R/W 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1861 (hereinafter referred as "IPC").
2. Briefly stated, as per the case of prosecution that on 22.07.2019 at night between 12:00 am to 07:00am at WZ - 495, Hans Medical Wali Gali Raj Nagar-I, Palam belonging to complainant Lalita Aggarwal, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Palam Village, accused alongwith his family members committed house trespass by breaking the lock of the shutter of the shop of the complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 453/34 IPC. Further, accused criminally intimidated complainant by threatening her to kill and her family and to get the father of the complainant falsely implicated in the false case and thereby accused committed offence punishable U/s 506 IPC. Further, accused also removed/disappeared the broken locks and DVR from her shop which are the evidence in the present case and thereby, she committed an offence punishable U/s 201 IPC.
3. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused was summoned by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 18.09.2019 and upon hearing arguments, charge was framed against accused for commission of offence U/S 453/506/201 R/W 34 IPC FIR NO. 280/2019 St. Vs. Poonam Aggarwal 3 on 20.01.2023 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
4. In order to prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined following nine witnesses:
Ms. Ms. Lalita Aggarwal who is complainant in the present case, as PW-1; Sh. Bhawani Shankar as PW-2; Sh. Babu Lal Aggarwal as PW-3; Sh. Mahender Kumar as PW-4;
Ms. Bimla Aggarwal as PW 5;
Ct. Mukesh, No. 1527/Sw as PW-6; SI Mukesh No. 5372-D as PW-7; ASI Anoop Kumar, No. 2188/SW as PW-8; Ct. Bharti, No. 2832/Sw as PW-9;
5. PW-1 Ms. Lalita Aggarwal is the complainant in this case. She has deposed that she is a student and on 22.07.2019 at about 7:00 AM she along with her father namely Sh. Bhawani Shankar went to their property i.e. Shop bearing No. WZ-495A Raj Nagar, shutter of which was kept opened by them and when they reached there, they found that one Mrs. Poonam Aggarwal and her family members had closed the shutter of their shop and got it weld from inside and put their lock on the shutter. She further deposed that Mrs. Poonam Aggarwal and her family members did the same intentionally in order to prevent their entry in the said shop and Mrs. Poonam FIR NO. 280/2019 St. Vs. Poonam Aggarwal 4 Aggarwal also intimidated to kill her. She further deposed that Mrs. Poonam Aggarwal also threatened to implicate her and her father in a false case and also threatened to kill her and her family member. She also threatened to implicate her father in a false rape case. Thus, she made call on 100 number from there only and the police reached the spot. Thereafter, Police recorded her statement Ex. PW1/A. IO prepared site plan at her instance Ex. PW1/B and seized their property document vide Ex. PW1/C. She also handed over the video footage as well as photographs of the incident to the IO and IO seized the same along with certificate U/S 65 B of IEA vide Ex. PW1/D. Accused was correctly identified by the witness in the court. She stated that IO also recorded her supplementary statement Ex. PW1/E (Colly in 2 pages).
6. PW-2 Sh. Bhawani Shankar has deposed that he is running a garment shop and residing at the above said address for the last 30 years. He further deposed that on 22.07.2019 in the morning, he along with her daughter namely Ms. Lalita Aggarwal went to shop situated at WZ-495, Raj Nagar, Part I, SadhNagar, Palam Colony, where they found that the shutter of their shop was locked from inside and accused Poonam Aggarwal was standing outside shop and was shouting that this shop belong to her and she had weld the shutter of the shop from inside by breaking the wall of his shop. He further deposed that accused was also intimidating them that she had locked the shop from inside as the same belongs to her, thereafter, on this his daughter called at 100 number and before reaching of the police officials, the accused had fled from the spot. He further deposed that after recording statement of his daughter by the police, the present case was registered. His daughter has also FIR NO. 280/2019 St. Vs. Poonam Aggarwal 5 supplied the ownership documents of their shop situated WZ-495, Raj Nagar, Part 1, SadhNagar, Palam Colony which were seized by IO of the present case in his presence vide memo Ex. PW1/C. His daughter has also supplied the CCTV footage as well as photographs of the incident in a pen drive to the IO which was sized vide memo Ex.PW1/D (Colly). During investigation IO also recorded his statement U/S 161 Cr. PC.
7. PW-3 Sh. Babu lal Aggarwal has deposed that he is residing at the aforesaid address since the year 1972 and that he is also owner of one property bearing NO. WZ432, Raj Nagar I, Palam Colony New Delhi where one CCTV Camera is installed outside the said property. He further deposed that he has supplied CCTV Footage of his CCTV Camera installed at his property to complainant Smt. Lalita Aggarwal in a Pen Drive. He had also seen the said CCTV Footage and in the said CCTV footage, accused Poonam Aggarwal can be seen taking DVR and CCTV Camera of her shop installed at WZ 433, Raj Nagar 1, Palam Colony. The said Pen Drive is Ex. PW3/A.
8. PW-4 Sh. Mahender Kumar has deposed that presently, he is doing welding work and do not remember the exact date but one person namely Shankar Aggarwal had called him to Hans Medical wali gali for shutter repairing. He went there for repairing the shutter and after repairing the shutter, he returned back to his house. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State with the permission of the court wherein he was confronted with his statement given U/s 161 Cr.P.C to which he denied to have given any such statement to any police official. He also denied the suggestion that he knew Lalita Aggarwal. He also denied the suggestion that he went FIR NO. 280/2019 St. Vs. Poonam Aggarwal 6 to WZ-495 A and found that shutter of the said shop was weld from inside and he on the instance of Lalita Aggarwal, opened the said shutter.
9. PW-5 Smt. Bimla Aggarwal has deposed that she is the owner of the property bearing No. WZ-495 Hans Medical Wali Gali, Raj Nagar Part I, Palam Colony. She handed over the photocopy of the ownership documents to her daughter namely Lalita and during the investigation of the present case, the same were supplied to the police officials by her daughter.
10. PW-6 Ct. Mukesh has deposed that on 22.07.2019 he was on emergency duty with ASI Mukesh and on receipt of DD No. 9 A they went to spot i.e. WZ-495, Raj Nagar Part 1, Palam Colony, New Delhi, in the street of Hans Medical store where the caller/ complainant Smt. Lalita Aggarwal met them with her father Sh. Bhawani Shankar and at that point of time, she refused to get her statement recorded and DD NO. 9 A was kept pending. Thereafter, complainant came to PS and got her statement recorded. IO of the present case ASI Mukesh also recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
11. PW-7 SI Mukesh has deposed as that of PW-6 Ct. Mukesh that on 22.07.2019 he was on emergency duty with Ct. Mukesh and on receipt of DD No. 9 A they went to spot i.c. WZ-495, Raj Nagar Part 1, Palam Colony. New Delhi, in the street of Hans Medical store where the caller/ complainant Smt. Lalita Aggarwal met them with her father Sh. Bhawani Shankar and at that point of time, she refused to get her statement recorded and DD NO. 9 A was kept pending. Thereafter, complainant came FIR NO. 280/2019 St. Vs. Poonam Aggarwal 7 to PS and got her statement recorded i.e. Ex. PW1/A and he prepared rukka / Tehrir Ex. PW7/A and got registered the present case FIR. Thereafter, he along with complainant went to the spot and prepared site plan Ex. PW1/B at the instance of complainant. He further deposed that on 23.07.2019 he arrested the accused Poonam Aggarwal vide memo Ex. PW7/B and he also recorded her disclosure statement vide Ex. PW7/C and thereafter, on 27.07.2019 he took PC Remand of the accused and recorded her supplementary statement vide Ex. PW7/D. He stated that he also seized the key was of the shop of accused vide memo Ex. PW7/E, in which the CCTV Camera was installed and Videographed the same which is placed on record in one pen drive i.e. Ex. PW7/1. He also seized the property document vide Ex. PW1/C. He also seized the pen driven provided by the complainant vide Ex. PW3/A and same was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/D (Colly) along with certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. During investigation, he also recorded statement of witnesses U/s 161 CrPC. He correctly identified the Accused in the court.
12. PW-8 ASI Anoop Kumar deposed that on 22.07.2017, he was posted as HC/DO at PS Palam village and he made his endorsement Ex. PW8/A upon the Tehrir/Rukka sent by ASI Mukesh and he got the present case FIR registered. He brought the original FIR Register vide which the FIR was registered and exhibited the FIR as Ex. PW8/B.
13. PW-9 W/Ct. Bharti has deposed that on 23.07.2019, she was posted as Ct at PS Palam village and she joined further investigation of the present case with ASI Mukesh, arrested the accused Poonam Aggarwal from Dwarka Court Complex vide FIR NO. 280/2019 St. Vs. Poonam Aggarwal 8 arrest Memo Ex. PW7/B and recorded her disclosure statement Ex. PW7/C. He correctly identified the accused in the court.
14. After examination of all prosecution witnesses, at the request of Ld. APP, PE was closed on 05.07.2024. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded on 03.10.2024 U/S 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") wherein she denied the allegations and claimed her false implication in the present case and stated that she wants to lead DE. Thus, the matter was listed for DE.
15. In her defence, the accused examined herself as DW-1 and deposed that due to previous litigations i.e. FIR No. 258/2019 PS Palam Village, she has been falsely implicated in the present case. Thereafter, after conclusion of DE, the DE was closed and the matter was thereafter, listed for final arguments.
16. Final arguments on behalf of accused as well as Ld. APP for State heard.
17. The Ld. APP urged that testimony of material witnesses have remained unchallenged in the cross-examination and there is no reason to doubt their testimonies. The Ld. Counsel for the accused, on the other hand, argued that there is no evidence in the present matter as no public witness was associated in investigation of the present case. It is further argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. I have heard the Ld. APP and Ld. defence counsel and have perused the case file.
FIR NO. 280/2019 St. Vs. Poonam Aggarwal 9 CULPABILITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 380/454/411 IPC
18. Therefore, after going through the evidence and circumstances of the case, it emerges that on 22.07.2019, ASI Mukesh/PW7 was posted in PS Palam village and was on emergency duty with Ct. Mukesh/PW6 and he received the DD number 9A after which they went to the spot that is WZ -495, Rajnagar Part I, Palam Colony, New Delhi in the street of Hans Medical Store where PW1/Lalita Agarwal i.e. complainant and her father Bhavani Shankar Agarwal/PW2 met them, but she refused to give any statement and thus, DD number 9A was kept pending. As per the deposition of IO, the complainant came to the police station and gave her statement Ex.PW1/A and he prepared the Rukka i.e. Ex. PW7/A and got the FIR registered. The IO then went to the spot and prepared the site plan i.e. Ex.PW1/B at the instance of the complainant. The IO/PW7 arrested the accused Poonam Agarwal vide memo Ex.PW7/B and also recorded her disclosure statement i.e. Ex.PW7/C and also recorded the supplementary statement Ex.PW7/D during the PC of the accused Poonam. He also seized the keys vide memo, EX.PW7/E of the shop of the accused in which the CCTV camera was installed and the whole process was videographed in the presence of the accused and the same was deposited in the court in one pen drive Ex.PW7/1. The IO also seized the documents of the property in question Ex.PW1/C. He also seized the pen drive provided by the complainant vide memo, Ex.PW1/D (colly) along with certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
19. However, this witness IO/PW7 has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not deposited the alleged pen drive containing the CCTV footage of the FIR NO. 280/2019 St. Vs. Poonam Aggarwal 10 occurrence in Malkhana and has also not sent the same to the FSL and the said pen drive remained with him throughout the investigation. He has also admitted that the complainant had provided the CCTV footage as well as the property documents to him in the police station. It is also admitted by him that the site plan does not show the place where the CCTV cameras were installed.
20. The testimony of PW8/ASI Anoop Kumar is formal in nature who after the receipt of rukka, registered the FIR. The testimony of WCT Bharati/PW9 is also formal in nature in whose presence accused Poonam was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW7/B and suffered disclosure statement i.e. Ex. PW7/C.
21. The prosecution has placed much reliance upon the testimony of the complainant/ PW1/Lalita Agarwal who deposed that on 22.07.2019 at around 7 AM, she along with her father Bhavani Shankar/PW2 went to their shop bearing No. WZ- 495A, Rajnagar Part I, Palam Colony, New Delhi. She has stated that when they reached at the shop, they found that one Mrs Poonam Agarwal and her family members had closed the shutter of their shop and got it weld from inside and put their lock on the shutter with a view to prevent their entry into the said shop. She has stated that the accused Poonam also intimidated to kill them and threatened to implicate her and her father in a false case. She also threatened to implicate her father in a false rape case. She gave a call on 100 number and the police came to the spot and her statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded and IO prepared the site plan i.e. Ex PW1/B and property documents were seized vide Ex.PW1/C. As per her deposition, she handed over a video of incident and photograph of the incident to the IO which FIR NO. 280/2019 St. Vs. Poonam Aggarwal 11 were taken into custody vide EX.PW1/D along with certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The witness correctly identified the accused in the court and has also testified her supplementary statement EX.PW1/E.
22. However, in her cross examination she has admitted that the entry to the said shop was through shutter only. She has also admitted that she has not mentioned in her statement before the IO that some construction work was going inside the said shop. She has also admitted that this CCTV footage were obtained from the shop of Shri Babulal, which was opposite to the place of occurrence. She has also admitted that no date and time of procuring the CCTV footage has been mentioned.
23. To substantiate further, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW2/Bhavani Shankar, who was allegedly present at the time of occurrence along with his daughter Lalita/ complainant. He has also deposed that on 22.07.2025, he along with his daughter, Lalita went to the shop and saw that the shutter of their shop was locked from inside accused. Poonam was standing outside the shop and was shouting that the said shop belonged to her and she had weld the shutter from inside by breaking the wall from the side of her shop. He has also deposed that the accused intimidated them by saying that the said shop belongs to her. Thereafter, his daughter called on 100 number and police officials reached at the shop and the accused fled from the shop. He has further deposed that the police recorded their statement on the basis of which the FIR was registered. As per his deposition, his daughter provided the property documents of the shop in question which were taken into custody vide Seizure memo EX.PW1/C, which bears his signature. He has further stated that his FIR NO. 280/2019 St. Vs. Poonam Aggarwal 12 daughter supplied the Video footage as well as photograph of the occurrence in a pen drive which were taken by the IO vide seizure memo i.e. EX PW1/D. However, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that the police did not check the CCTV footage near the spot in his presence but he had clicked the videos and photographs of his weld shop after breaking the locks and he provided the video and the photograph to the police. He does not know the make of the camera from which he clicked the photographs or made the video.
24. To substantiate further, the prosecution has produced Shri Babulal Agarwal as PW3, who was the owner of shop bearing number WZ-432, Raj Nagar Part 1, Palam colony, New Delhi. He has stated that CCTV cameras were installed outside the shop and he supplied this footage of CCTV camera in a pen drive to the complainant. He has stated that in the said CCTV footage accused Poonam was seen taking the DVR and CCTV cameras from the shop of accused at WZ-433, Rajnagar part one, Palam colony.
25. The prosecution has produced the alleged Welder Shri Mahendra Kumar as PW 4 who has stated that Bhawani Shankar Agarwal had called him to Hans Medical Wali Gali for repairing the shutter and and he went there for repairing the shutter, and after repairing the shutter, he came back. However, since the witness was not supporting the prosecution version, as such at the request of Ld APP, for the state, he was allowed to cross examine the witness as the witness was suppressing the truth. In his cross-examination by Ld. AAP for the state, the witness was confronted with his statement recorded under section 161 CRPC, but this witness denied giving the said FIR NO. 280/2019 St. Vs. Poonam Aggarwal 13 statement to the police officials. He also denied the suggestion that complainant Lalita was known to him, and he has also denied the suggestion that he visited the shop WZ-495A and found that the shutter of the shop was weld from inside and that he has opened the shutter of the said shop at the instance of Lalitha Agarwal.
26. The testimony of PW5 /Bimla Aggarwal is formal in nature as he has supplied the documents of the property situated at WZ495, Hans medical wali Gali, Rajnagar part one, Palam colony. The testimony of PW6/Ct. Mukesh is also formal in nature who on 22.09.2019 visited the place of occurrence, where complainant Lalitha Agarwal/PW-1 along with Bhavani Shankar/PW2 met them and they refused to give their statement. However, their statement was recorded in the police station subsequently.
27. Therefore, the main testimony of the prosecution witnesses are of Lalita Agarwal i.e. PW1 and her father Bhavani Shankar PW2. However. The testimony of these witness is not worth relying upon.
28. After going through the testimony of Lalita /PW1, Bhavani Shankar/PW2, it emerges that they have stated that the accused had threatened to implicate Bhavani Shankar/PW2 in a false rape case. It is pertinent to mention here that the stated occurrence had taken place on 22.07.2019, however, it has come in evidence from the testimony of accused Poonam DW1 that an FIR 258/2019 has been registered against the father of the complainant i.e. Bhavani Shankar/PW2 prior to the present alleged occurrence. Therefore, it is evident that the FIRNo. 258/19 has been got recorded by FIR NO. 280/2019 St. Vs. Poonam Aggarwal 14 the accused Poonam against the father of the complainant regarding the commission of rape upon her. Therefore, the testimony of PW1 and PW2 is motivated and inspires no confidence because they are related /interested witnesses as they both have stated that the accused threatened them to implicate his father Bhavani Shankar PW1 in a false rape case despite the fact that rape case had already been registered prior to the aforementioned incident and as such the allegation that the accused threatened PW1 and her father PW2 to implicate PW2 falsely in a rape case is totally devoid of merit and inspires no confidence as the rape case had already been registered against PW2. As such , the testimony of PW1 and PW2 is liable to be discarded and the deposition of accused DW1 substantiates the defence taken at the time of recording of her statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C.
29. The prosecution has placed much reliance upon the CCTV footage which has been produced in pendrive EX. PW3/A. The said pen drive has been perused. After going through the said CCTV footage, it emerges that there is no date or time mentioned in the said CCTV footage so as to relate that the CCTV footage belongs to the day of occurrence.
30. The IO /PW7 has admitted that there is no date mentioned in the CCTV Footage. Also, on perusal of the same, the said CCTV footage seems to have been played on a computer screen and recording is made from a mobile phone. It is further observed that the CCTV footage belonged to the camera installed at the shop of PW3/Babu Lal, whereas the certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act which has been placed on record by the IO, was issued by the complainant Lalita.
FIR NO. 280/2019 St. Vs. Poonam Aggarwal 15
31. Section 65B certificate requires identifying the electronic record, detailing its production method and the device used, confirming that the conditions under Section 65B(2) were met, and being signed by a person in a responsible position relating to the device's operation, all to the best of their knowledge. This certificate is crucial for admitting secondary electronic evidence. However, in the present case, the complainant Lalita was never in a position to oversee the operation of CCTV cameras installed in the premises of Babu Lal and as such, the said certificate cannot be deemed to satisfy the requirements as mentioned U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the pen drive containing the CCTV footage, EX.PW3/A cannot be said to be a piece of secondary evidence which is admissible under the law and as such, the same cannot be taken into consideration by the court.
32. Moreover, it has come in evidence from the cross-examination of the IO/PW7 that the said pen drive/CCTV footage of the occurrence and photograph remained in his custody and he never deposited the same either in the Malkhana or in the FSL. Therefore, it leads to irresistible conclusion that the IO has failed to discharge his duties as per law because he was under an obligation to deposit the case property/evidence recovered relating to the case in the Malkhana or the FSL lab.
33. Further, the prosecution has placed on record a CCTV footage made by the IO during the PC demand of the accused Poonam. He is shown conducting the proceedings of opening the shop of accused Poonam and going inside and checking for the CCTV cameras installed in the premises of shop of accused Poonam. However, during the checking of the said shop, no CCTV cameras or the DVR was FIR NO. 280/2019 St. Vs. Poonam Aggarwal 16 recovered by the IO after which he alleged the offence of destruction of evidence upon the accused Poonam. However, the prosecution has projected that the shop of the accused had the CCTV Camera which could have recorded the alleged incident wherein the accused Poonam could have been seen to have entered into the shop of the complainant and thereby weld the shutter from inside. However, the prosecution has failed to primarily establish the presence of CCTV cameras in the shop of accused Poonam to sustain the charges under section 201 of the IPC against the accused. When there is no evidence regarding the installation of CCTV cameras in the shop of accused Poonam, it cannot be said that accused Poonam deliberately destroyed the evidence by taking away the DVR and CCTV cameras installed in her shop. At the same time, the welder, Mahender Kumar/ PW4 has also not supported the prosecution version and was declared hostile to the prosecution, and even by cross examining him, nothing incriminating could be extracted against the accused. Therefore, the allegation of the prosecution that the accused weld the shutter from the inside could not be established.
34. It is again pertinent to mention that no witness of the locality or from the neighbouring shop was joined in the investigation by the IO for the reasons best known to him. The complainant has also not made any efforts to ask any neighbour to depose about the alleged occurrence.
35. Also, the investigating officer has not depicted the place in the site plan i.e. Ex. PW1/B from where the CCTV camera was installed and from where the CCTV footage EX.PW3/A was taken. There is nothing on the file to correlate that the said FIR NO. 280/2019 St. Vs. Poonam Aggarwal 17 CCTV footage stored in pen drive EX.PW3/A pertained to the date of occurrence. The date and time in the said CCTV footage is also missing and thus, it cannot be denied that the said footage could have belonged to some other date and the said CCT Footage footage has been produced only to support the prosecution story.
36. In criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove it's case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be allowed to the accused. In view of discussion made above, it becomes clear that in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the mens rea i.e the accused acted rashly or negligently and it resulted into the death of the victim and since, the prosecution has failed to establish the necessary mens rea of the offences with which the accused has been charged, the benefit of doubt ought to be given to accused persons. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, the accused Poonam Aggarwal is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section Digitally signed 453, 506, 201 R/W 34 IPC. by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.10.09 Announced in the open court on (Saurabh Goyal) 16:30:59 +0530 th this day i.e. 09 October, 2025 JMFC-01 South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi It is certified that this judgment contains 17 pages and each page bears my Digitally signed signatures. SAURABH by SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.10.09 16:31:04 +0530 (Saurabh Goyal) JMFC-01 South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi FIR NO. 280/2019 St. Vs. Poonam Aggarwal