Delhi District Court
State vs . on 1 March, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK KUMAR GULIA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 1 (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
In the matter of:
State
Vs.
Sanjay Bhari
FIR NO. 241/01
P.S. Krishna Nagar
1. Sr. No. of the case : 11/03
2. Date of institution : 30.01.2003
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Hemant Dhawan
4. Date of commission of offence : 13.09.2001 to 17.10.2001
5. Name of accused : Sanjay Bhari,
S/o. Kushal Bhari, R/o 100,
Unitech Apartments, Sun
Bridge Tower, Vaishali,
Ghaziabad, UP.
6. Offence complained of : 507 IPC
7. Plea of guilt : Accused pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the Judgment : 01.03.2011
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of such Judgment : 01.03.2011
Page no. 1 of 3 State vs. Sanjay Bhari; FIR NO. 241/01
2
J U D G M E N T
1. The present FIR u/s. 507 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was registered at PS Krishna Nagar on the complaint of Sh. Hemant Dhawan whereby he mentioned that he gave a loan of Rs. Seven lacs to the accused and in discharge of his legal liability, accused gave 3 cheques to pay back the loan amount. All the cheques were dishonoured and when accused was requested to pay the loan amount then he started threatening the complainant on telephone. After conducting the routine investigation, accused was chargesheeted and summoned for trial.
2. In light of the above stated facts and proceedings, vide order dated 07.06.2005, finding a primafacie case, Sh. Rakesh Kumar, the then MM, Karkardooma framed charge for the offence punishable 507 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. For proving its case, the prosecution has produced two witnesses 3A. PW1, Ct. Surender Kumar, testified that on 17.10.2001, he reached at the shop of complainant where he disclosed the address of the accused. When they went to the shops of accused, the shops were found closed. 3B. PW2, W/ASI Gyan Prabha, proved the present FIR Ex. PW2/A. Page no. 2 of 3 State vs. Sanjay Bhari; FIR NO. 241/01 3 3C. During prosecution evidence, the summons were sent to complainant at his residence and shop address but he was not found to be residing or working there. Remaining witnesses were related to investigation only and therefore, PE was ordered to be closed. Statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as prosecution side failed to produce any incriminating material on record against accused.
4. I have heard the State through Sh. M.A. Khan, Ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor and Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. S. K. Singh.
5. It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the prosecution has not been able to bring any incriminating evidence on record . On the other hand, Ld. APP for State did not controvert the fact that apart from complainant, testimony of other PWs, whether examined or not, would not be sufficient to prove the guilt of accused.
6. In view of above, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove its case. Therefore, accused is ordered to be acquitted.
Announced in the open court ( Vivek Kumar Gulia )
st
On 1 Day of March, 2011 MMI (East)
(Total three pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Page no. 3 of 3 State vs. Sanjay Bhari; FIR NO. 241/01