Delhi District Court
State vs Pravez Khureshi on 28 March, 2026
State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY: SH. P BHARGAV RAO
DLET020005752010
FIR No.209/2009
PS - Krishna Nagar
U/s 186/353/506(ii)/34 IPC
STATE VS. PARVEZ KHURESHI & ORS.
1) CR Case No. 6748/2016
2) Date of offence(s) 22.05.2009
3) Complainant Dr. V.K. Singh, Dy. Director,
Veterinary Officer, Central Meat
Raid Team, Gazipur Slaughter
House, Delhi.
4) Accused person(s) 1. Parvez Khureshi S/o Sh.
Nasir Ali R/o 4929/F-8, Gali
No.3, Kanti Nagar Extension,
Delhi.
2. Aasif Khureshi S/o Sh. Nasir
Ali R/o 4929/F-8, Gali No.3,
Kanti Nagar Extension, Delhi.
5) Offences Under Section
186/353/506(ii)/34 IPC
6) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
7) Final Order Acquitted u/s 186/506(ii)/34
IPC
Convicted u/s 353 IPC
Digitally 8) Date of institution 12.03.2010
signed by P
BHARGAV
P
BHARGAV
RAO
Date: 9) Date of judgment 28.03.2026
RAO 2026.03.28
16:18:59
+0530
FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 1/25
State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
JUDGEMENT
1. The brief facts of the case are that accused persons have been charge sheeted for committing offence punishable under Section 186/353/506(ii)/34 IPC.
2. The allegations against the accused persons are that on 22.05.2009 at about 09:55 am at H.No. 4929/F8, Kanti Nagar Extn., near Sunhari Masjid, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of the concerned police station, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention alongwith other associates voluntarily obstructed public servants namely Dr. V. K. Singh (Veterinary Officer), Sh. Manoj, Sh. Ayush, Raja Ram and Ct. Ajay Kumar (MCD Police Staff) in discharge of their public duties, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 186/34 IPC. Further, on the above said date, time and place, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention alongwith other associates used criminal force against the complainant Dr. V. K. Singh and other members of Central Meat Raid Team, Delhi, with intent to prevent them from discharging their official duties as public servants, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 353/34 IPC. Further, on the above said date, time and place, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention alongwith other associates extended life threats to the complainant and other public servants, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506(II)/34 IPC.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
Digitally
signed by P
BHARGAV Accused persons werer supplied with copies in compliance of
P RAO
BHARGAV
RAO Date:
2026.03.28 Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Charge 16:19:07 +0530 FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 2/25 State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
was framed under Section 186/353/506(ii)/34 IPC against the accused persons vide order dated 27.11.2012 to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution had relied upon the following documentary evidence:
Exhibit Proved by /
Description of the exhibit
No. Attested by
Written complaint by Dr.
PW1/A PW1
V.K. Singh
Seizure memo of torn police
PW1/B PW1
uniform
Case property (torn police
P1 uniform and other seized PW1
items)
Original receipt No. 7308
P2 (OSR) dated 22.05.2009 issued in PW1
the name of accused Asif
Arrest memo of accused
PW6/A PW6
Pervez Kureshi
Arrest memo of accused
PW7/A PW7
Asif Kureshi
Disclosure statement of
PW7/B PW7
accused Asif Kureshi
PW5/A
Copy of FIR No. 209/09 PW5
(OSR)
Endorsement on rukka by SI
PW5/B PW5
Vir Pal Singh
PW8/A Site plan PW8
Torn police uniform from
PW8/P-1 PW8
pullanda sealed with "AV"
Digitally
signed by P
Register No. 19, Entry No.
P
BHARGAV
PW9/A
BHARGAV
RAO
2887/303 regarding seized PW9
RAO Date: (OSR)
2026.03.28
16:19:13
pullanda (torn uniform)
+0530
FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 3/25
State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has examined 09 witnesses who are as follows:
Prosecution Name of the Description witness No. witness PW1 Dr. V.K. Singh Veterinary Officer, led the meat raid team PW2 Sh. Raja Ram Veterinary Worker, part of meat raid team PW3 Sh. Manoj Beldar at MCD meat Sharma raid team PW4 Ct. Ajay Kumar Posted as guard in meat raid, manhandled by accused, uniform torn, assisted in controlling accused.
PW5 SI Vir Pal Singh Duty office who
registered the FIR
PW6 Retd. HC Raj Police witness who
Pal Singh had joined the
investigation and one
the police personnel
who took the accused
to SDN Hospital for
medical examination.
PW7 ASI Vakil Police witness
Ahmed
PW8 Retd. SI Jai Pal Investigation Officer
Singh
PW9 HC Sachin MHC(M)
Digitally
Kasana
signed by P
BHARGAV
P RAO
BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2026.03.28
16:19:22
6. The testimony of all the witnesses are reproduced +0530 hereunder for ready reference and the relevancy and admissibility FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 4/25 State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
of said testimony will be dealt with at the later part of the judgment :
7. PW1 Dr. V.K Singh, Dy. Director, Veterinary Services, South Zone, SDMO. Delhi in his testimony deposed that on 22.05.2009, while posted as Veterinary Officer in the Central Meat Raid Team at Gazipur Slaughter House, Delhi, he along with Manoj, Ayub, Raja Ram (both veterinary workers), and Ct.
Ajay reached a meat shop near Sunehri Masjid, Kanti Nagar, Delhi, where accused Parvez and Asif were found present and correctly identified in court; it is further stated that upon inspection, the meat was found to be illegally slaughtered buffalo calf (Katra) meat, and when asked to produce a valid license for selling the meat, the accused failed to do so; it is mentioned that thereafter accused Parvez got a challan of Rs. 750/- prepared in the name of accused Asif at the shop address, however the accused did not pay the amount and instead attempted to flee from the shop with the meat, but were stopped by the accompanying constable; it is further mentioned that both accused persons manhandled the constable and tore his uniform and name plate, and also threatened to kill the officials present; it is stated that at about 9:55 a.m. a call was made to the police at 100 number, after which accused Parvez became agitated, instigated public persons by alleging that the witness was abusing Muslims, and called several persons who gathered at the spot, out of whom four individuals also threatened the witness and questioned him for allegedly abusing Muslims, which allegation was denied by the witness; it is further stated that another call Digitally P signed by P BHARGAV was made at about 10:17 a.m., and at about 10:20 a.m. PCR RAO BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2026.03.28
16:19:30
+0530
FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 5/25
State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
along with ASI Malik reached the spot, after which upon again demanding the challan amount, accused Parvez pushed the witness out of the shop, and the ASI took the witness and his team to the police chowki at East Old Seelampur where the witness lodged a complaint marked Ex. PW1/A; it is further stated that thereafter the witness accompanied the ASI to the spot where the site plan was prepared, but the accused were not found present, and the torn uniform was seized vide memo Ex. PW1/B bearing his signatures; it is mentioned that the case property, including the torn police uniform, was produced in court, identified by the witness, and marked as Ex. P1; it is further mentioned that Dr. Prahlad Kumar, Additional Director, Gazipur Slaughter House, EDMC, produced the composite fee book issued in the name of the witness, and the original receipt No. 7308 dated 22.05.2009 issued in the name of accused Asif was shown to the witness, who correctly identified it and stated that the receipt had been cancelled with approval of the competent authority, and the copy of the receipt already on record was marked as Ex. P2 (OSR). The witness was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
8. PW-2 Sh. Raja Ram, s/o Sh. Shiv Charan deposed that on 22.05.2009 he was posted as a Veterinary Worker at Ghazipur Slaughter House and at about 09:00-09:15 a.m., he along with Dr. V.K. Singh, one police official Ajay, IO, Manoj Sharma, and other raiding staff reached the shop of accused Parvej situated at Gali No. 3, Kanti Nagar near a mosque, though he did not remember the exact shop number; it is further stated that Dr. V.K. Digitally signed by P BHARGAV Singh along with police officials entered the shop and inspected P RAO BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2026.03.28
16:19:38
+0530 FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 6/25
State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
the meat, which was found to be unstamped by Ghazipur Slaughter House, and inside the shop accused Parvej was present along with one worker whose name he did not remember and whom he could not identify in court; it is mentioned that since the meat was of buffalo and not duly stamped, the doctor was in the process of imposing a fine when accused Parvej attempted to remove the meat from the shop, started abusing the raiding staff and doctor, and also manhandled the raiding staff; it is further mentioned that accused Parvej called 4-5 persons to the spot and the doctor made a call at 100 number, after which police reached and took all of them to the police station, and during the incident the uniform of a police official got torn, though the witness stated that he did not know who had torn it as there were several persons present; it is stated that police inquired from them at the police station and they also pointed out the place of occurrence, after which he was relieved, and the torn uniform was taken into possession by the police, sealed in a white cloth, and seized vide memo Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature; it is further stated that during court proceedings a sealed pullanda containing a torn Delhi Police uniform shirt was produced and opened, which the witness stated appeared similar in colour to the uniform worn at the time of incident but he could not confirm if it was the same, and the case property was already exhibited as Ex. P1. As the witness was resiling from his previous statement, the witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP for State wherein the witness admitted that they had reached shop no. 4929-F8, Gali No. 3, Sunahari Masjid, but stated that he could not tell whether the Digitally P signed by P BHARGAV doctor had asked for the license or whether the accused had RAO BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2026.03.28
16:19:44
+0530
FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 7/25
State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
refused to produce it, though confronted with his previous statement. The witness admitted that accused Parvej had attempted to remove the meat and had abused the doctor and police officials when restrained, and stated that one worker was present and that Asif might have been present but he could not confirm; it is further stated that when his attention was drawn towards accused Asif, he failed to identify him and stated that Asif was not present, and denied suggestions that accused Asif was present and had participated in manhandling or extending threats or tearing the uniform, though confronted with prior statements. The witness admitted that accused Parvej had shouted that Muslims were being abused and attempted to incite communal disturbance, and denied suggestions that he was deliberately not identifying the case property or accused Asif or that he had been won over by the accused or was deposing falsely. The witness was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
9. PW-3 Sh. Manoj Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Phal Sharma deposed that from 2009 to 2013 he was posted with the meat raid team at Ghazipur Slaughter House, MCD, and on 22.05.2009 he along with Dr. V.K. Singh, Ct. Ajay Kumar, Ayyub Khan, and Raja Ram reached shop no. 4929-F-8, Gali No. 3, Sunahri Masjid Road, Kanti Nagar Extension, Delhi, and the duty of the team was to check and stop the sale of unauthorized meat; it is further stated that upon reaching the said shop, Dr. V.K. Singh inspected the meat and found it to be unstamped and unauthorized, and at the shop accused Parvej along with accused Asif, whose name he Digitally signed by P came to know later, were present; it is mentioned that Dr. V.K. P BHARGAV BHARGAV RAO RAO Date:
2026.03.28 16:19:50 +0530 FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 8/25 State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
Singh asked the accused persons to produce a valid license, but they failed to do so, and thereafter the doctor prepared a challan for violation of the provisions of the DMC Act and asked the accused to pay the fine; it is further mentioned that upon this the accused persons attempted to remove the meat from the shop, but Ct. Ajay stopped them, following which the accused persons manhandled Ct. Ajay and Dr. V.K. Singh, quarreled with them, and hurled abuses; it is stated that the accused persons also tore the uniform of Ct. Ajay and shouted that the doctor was abusing Muslims, thereby attempting to gather a crowd and incite communal disturbance; it is further stated that Dr. V.K. Singh and Ct. Ajay managed to rescue themselves and came out of the shop, after which a call was made at 100 number and police reached at the spot, and the entire incident was narrated to them; it is mentioned that Ct. Ajay produced his torn uniform which was seized by the police vide memo Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature, and the witness correctly identified both the accused persons present in court as well as the case property already exhibited as Ex. P1. The witness was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
10. PW-4 HC Ajay Kumar deposed that on 22.05.2009, the witness was posted at DAP, 1st Battalion as Ct. and his duty was at Ghazipur Slaughter House, Delhi, as a guard who joined the raiding party along with the concerned maternity doctor. It is further stated that he joined the raiding team led by Dr. V.K. Singh, which also included beldars Ayub, Raja Ram, and another Digitally signed by P person whose name he did not recall, though he believed it was BHARGAV P BHARGAV RAO RAO Date: Sharma. It is mentioned that the team proceeded to Kanti Nagar 2026.03.28 16:19:56 +0530 FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 9/25 State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
Extension near Sunehari Masjid and reached the meat shop of accused Parvej located at 4929/F-8 at around 09:30 a.m. It is further stated that Dr. V.K. Singh inspected the meat inside the shop and found it unstamped, illegal, and being sold by accused Parvej and Asif. It is mentioned that Dr. V.K. Singh asked the accused to produce a license for selling the meat, but they failed to do so. It is further stated that Dr. V.K. Singh made a challan of Rs. 750/- in the name of accused Asif and demanded payment of the fine, but the accused refused and attempted to leave the shop. It is mentioned that the witness tried to stop them, but both accused manhandled him, grabbed his shirt, tore his nameplate, and broke the buttons while attempting to carry out the unstamped meat. It is further stated that the accused came out of the shop with the meat, and Dr. V.K. Singh called the 100 number. It is mentioned that both accused started abusing and using filthy language and attempted to instigate communal riots by falsely claiming that Dr. V.K. Singh had insulted Muslims. It is further stated that four other persons gathered at the scene and the accused extended life threats. It is mentioned that ASI Jai Pal Singh arrived at the spot, made inquiries, and the witness correctly identified both accused persons who are present in court today. It is further stated that they then proceeded to the police station where the statement of Dr. V.K. Singh was recorded, the FIR was registered, and they returned to the spot where IO ASI Jai Pal Singh prepared the site plan at the instance of Dr. V.K. Singh. It is mentioned that the witness handed over his torn uniform shirt, which was taken into police possession and seized Digitally P signed by P BHARGAV vide memo Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature after being placed in RAO BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2026.03.28
16:20:04
+0530 FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 10/25
State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
a pullanda sealed with 'JPS'. It is further stated that the accused were not found at the spot that day and the witness was relieved after recording his statement. It is mentioned that the case property, including the torn police uniform, was produced in court in a pullanda sealed with court seal 'AV' and correctly identified by the witness as the uniform he was wearing that was torn by the accused. It is further stated that the original challan receipt No. 7308 dated 22.05.2009 issued in the name of Asif was also correctly identified by the witness and marked as Ex.P-1 (OSR). The witness was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
11. PW-5 SI Vir Pal Singh deposed that on 22.05.2009 he was posted at PS Krishna Nagar as HC and was working as Duty Officer from 08:00 a.m. to 04:00 p.m. It is further stated that at about 12:30 p.m., Ct. Baleshwar handed over a rukka sent by ASI Jai Pal Singh. It is mentioned that he registered FIR No. 209/09 on the basis of the rukka and thereafter handed over the copy of the FIR and the original rukka to Ct. Baleshwar to be delivered to ASI Jai Pal Singh for further action. It is further mentioned that the copy of the FIR is marked as Ex.PW-5/A bearing his signature at point A (OSR) and his endorsement on the rukka is marked as Ex.PW-5/B bearing his signature at point A. The witness was cross-examined as "Nil. Opportunity given." by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
12. PW-6 Retd. HC Raj Pal Singh deposed that on 23.05.2009 he was posted at PS Krishna Nagar, PP Old Seelampur as Ct. and Digitally on that day he joined the investigation of the present case. It is signed by P P BHARGAV BHARGAV RAO further stated that he along with ASI Jai Pal Singh and Ct. Date:
RAO 2026.03.28
16:20:10
+0530
FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 11/25
State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
Baleshwar reached Kanti Nagar Extension near Suneheri Masjid, Gali No. 3, where an FIR had already been registered regarding a tussle, and they went in search of the accused persons. It is mentioned that a secret informer provided a hint to the IO regarding a person standing there, and ASI Jai Pal Singh interrogated him and came to know that his name was Parvez. It is further stated that the accused was thereafter arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/A bearing his signature at point A and was taken to SDN Hospital for medical examination, after which he was kept at the police station. It is mentioned that his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and he correctly identified the accused Parvez Kureshi, who is present in court today. The witness was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
13. PW-7 ASI Vakil Ahmed deposed that on 27.05.2009 he was posted at PS Krishna Nagar, PP Old Seelampur, and on that day he was present at the police station when ASI Jai Pal instructed him to join the investigation. It is further stated that he along with ASI Jai Pal reached Karkardoom Court where accused Asif was formally arrested in the present case vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/A bearing his signature at point A. It is mentioned that the IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Asif, which is marked as Ex.PW7/B bearing his signature at point A. It is further stated that the accused was later granted bail, and he along with ASI Jai Pal returned to the police station where his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is mentioned that he correctly identified the accused Asif, who is present in Digitally signed by P P BHARGAV RAO court today. The witness was duly cross-examined by the Ld. BHARGAV RAO Date:
2026.03.28 16:20:17 +0530 FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 12/25 State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
Counsel for accused.
14. PW-8 Retd. SI Jai Pal Singh deposed that on 22.05.2009 he was posted at PP Old Seelampur under PS Krishna Nagar as ASI and was on emergency duty from 08:00 a.m. to 08:00 p.m. with DD Entry No. 17 marked to him. It is further stated that he, along with Ct. Baleshwar, reached in front of HNO 4929/8, Gali No. 3, Old Seelampur, Kanti Nagar, where several persons had gathered and there was an uproar involving shopkeepers and some persons towards a doctor. It is mentioned that he rescued the doctor from the crowd and took him to the chowki, and while leaving the spot, instructed a subordinate to bring some witnesses to the police station. It is further stated that the doctor informed him in front of the members of the society that a receipt was prepared regarding the treatment, he had been obstructed in the execution of his duty, and the accused persons had torn the uniform of the security staff. It is mentioned that the doctor submitted his complaint in writing, marked Ex.PW1/A, and when offered medical aid, he declined. It is further stated that the witness handed over the complaint to Ct. Baleshwar for FIR registration, received a copy of the FIR, and the security official Ct. Ajay Kumar handed over his torn uniform, which the witness placed in a pullanda, sealed with the seal of "JPS," and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point E. It is mentioned that he prepared the site plan Ex.PW8/A bearing his signature at point A and searched for the accused persons but could not find them. It is further stated that the next day, through a secret informer, he Digitally signed by P learned that the accused persons would come near Sunehri BHARGAV P BHARGAV RAO Date:
Masjid, and along with Ct. Rajpal, Ct. Baleshwar, Ct. Ajay, and RAO 2026.03.28 16:20:23 +0530 FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 13/25 State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
the informer, he reached the spot where the informer indicated accused Pervez Kureshi, who was also identified by Ct. Ajay, and he apprehended and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/A bearing his signature at point A. It is mentioned that upon interrogation, the accused revealed the whereabouts of accused Aasif Kureshi, who had gone to a relative's house, and the next day, Aasif Kureshi was produced before the court and sent to JC. It is further stated that on 27.05.2009, he received a call that accused Aasif Kureshi would surrender at Karkardooma Court, reached the court, and formally arrested him vide Ex.PW7/A bearing his signature at point A. It is mentioned that he correctly identified both accused persons, Pervez Kureshi and Aasif Kureshi, present in court today, and also identified the case property. It is further stated that MHC(M) produced the case property, namely a pullanda sealed with "AV," which upon opening revealed a torn police uniform from the left pocket without a nameplate, and the witness correctly identified it as Ex.PW8/P-1. The witness was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
15. PW-9 HC Sachin Kasana deposed that he brought Register No. 19 regarding Entry No. 2887/303, marked Ex.PW9/A (OSR), which was made on 22.05.2009 by the previous MHC(M) concerning a pullanda containing a torn uniform of a police official. It is further stated that the pullanda was sealed with the seal of "JPS." The witness was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
Digitally signed by P 16. As summons to PW Ayub Worker received back unserved BHARGAV P RAO BHARGAV RAO Date: with the report that the witness has expired on 09.12.2018, the 2026.03.28 16:20:30 +0530 FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 14/25 State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
witness was dropped from list of witnesses vide order dated 08.02.2019. Further, witness at S.No.5 Ct. Baleshwar of list of witnesses was not examined by the Prosecution.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
17. Upon completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 25.10.2023 and the evidence surfaced against them and documents exhibited during the trial were put to them. The accused persons denied their correctness and pleaded innocence. The accused persons opted not to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, on 17.11.2023, application u/s 315 Cr.P.C. was filed which was allowed and the matter was then listed for DE.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
18. In order to substantiate its case, accused Parvez Khureshi examined himself.
19. DW1 Parvez Khureshi has deposed that he does not remember the exact date of the incident and that he was running a meat shop. It is further stated that Dr. V.K. Singh used to visit his shop for inspection and allegedly tortured him and demanded money. It is mentioned that on one occasion Dr. V.K. Singh demanded Rs. 10,000 for conducting the inspection, which the deponent could not pay due to his modest business. It is further stated that on one day, after a heated discussion, he called the 100 number and police officials arrived at the spot and took him and Dr. V.K. Singh to PS Krishna Nagar. It is mentioned that he Digitally signed by P submitted a written complaint at the police station against Dr. BHARGAV P RAO BHARGAV RAO Date:
2026.03.28 16:20:40 +0530 FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 15/25 State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
V.K. Singh regarding his grievance. It is further stated that he later came to know that his brother, Asif Qureshi, was falsely implicated in the present case along with him. It is mentioned that he had been conducting his business fairly for the past 30 years, had applied for renewal of his license, and had no prior complaints against him. It is further stated that this is the first incident in which he and his brother have been allegedly booked falsely in this case. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. APP for State. Thereafter, accused Parvez Khureshi and Ld. Counsel on behalf of accused Aasif Khureshi vide separate statements dated 25.02.2025 stated that they want to close DE. Hence, the DE was closed.
20. I have heard arguments on behalf of the State as well as arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for accused persons and also carefully perused the material on record.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE -
21. Before proceeding with the appreciation of evidence, it is imperative to refer to the definition of the offences charged against the accused persons. For a better understanding, relevant Sections of the IPC involved in the present case are reproduced as follows:
Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 :
"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 Digitally signed by P extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to BHARGAV P BHARGAV RAO Date:
five hundred rupees, or with both."
RAO 2026.03.28
16:20:46
+0530
FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 16/25
State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 :
"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(II) in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 "506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.-- Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprison-ment 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.-- And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both." Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 "34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
APPRECIATION OF FACTS/CONTENTIONS/ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
22. In the instant case, the court is posed with following Digitally signed by P P BHARGAV RAO questions for determination to adjudge the veracity of BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2026.03.28
16:20:52
+0530 FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 17/25
State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
prosecution case:
(a) whether the complainant and the other victims were public servants at the time of alleged commission of offences in question?
(b) whether the said persons were 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 act of accused persons?
(d) (i) for the purpose of Section 186 IPC, whether the complaint was filed before this court u/S 195 Cr.P.C?
(ii) for the purpose of Section 353 IPC, whether the accused persons had assaulted or used any criminal force to the said persons during the execution of their duties?
23. 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.
24. As regards the first point, there is ample evidence on record to prove that the complainant and the other victims were public servants at the time when the acts allegedly constituting the offences in question were committed by the accused on 22.05.2009. Section 21 IPC defines as to who is a public servant. Digitally The clauses relevant to this case are:
signed by P P BHARGAV Eighth. -- Every officer of [the Government] whose duty BHARGAV RAO RAO Date:
2026.03.28 16:20:59 it is, as such officer, to prevent offences, to give +0530 FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 18/25 State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
information of offences, to bring offenders to justice, or to protect the public health, safety or convenience; Twelfth --Every person--
(a) in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government;
25. In the present case, it is pertinent to mention that the accused never raised any dispute qua the status of the complainant and the victim as government servants. The accused persons in their cross-examination of PW1 Dr. V.K. Singh has admitted that PW1 has also visited the shop of the accused persons. Further, in his DE, accused Parvez Khureshi had deposed that Dr. V.K. Singh visited his shop for inspection in the year 2008-09 and even prior to year 2008. Even no dispute qua the status of PW4 HC Ajay Kumar being government servant has been raised by the accused persons in his cross-examination. Not even a single suggestion has been given that he was not a government servant at the time of incident. Further, Dr. V.K. Singh has brought on record original receipt No. 7308 dated 22.05.2009 of MCD issued in the name of accused Asif. Therefore, it is clear that PW1 and PW4 were government servants and were discharging their official duties at the time of the incident.
26. As regards offences U/s 186 IPC and 353 IPC, it is to be kept in mind that import of Section 186 IPC and Section 353 IPC is to punish persons who created obstruction in the discharge of duties of public servants. While Section 186 IPC envisages Digitally P signed by P BHARGAV merely voluntary obstruction, section 353 IPC lays down an RAO BHARGAV RAO Date:
2026.03.28 16:21:06 +0530 FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 19/25 State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
additional condition that such obstruction must be caused by assaulting or using criminal force against the public servant. In this regard, the reference may be sought from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Durgacharan Naik & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa AIR 1966 SC 1775 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the difference between the two sections in 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."
27. Nevertheless, for proving the charge of Section 186 IPC, there has to be fulfilment of the procedural requirement of Digitally signed by P section 195 Cr.P.C as well. As per Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., BHARGAV P BHARGAV RAO Date:
the cognizance for offence under Section 186 IPC could be taken RAO 2026.03.28 16:21:13 +0530 FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 20/25 State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
only upon the written complaint of public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the present case, the complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C has not been exhibited for the best reasons known to the prosecution. In Mohd. Iqbai Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1979) 4 SCC 172, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after it is satisfied that the case for sanction has been made out. Further, in C.B.I./SPE, Hyderabad Vs. P.Muthuraman 1996 Cri LJ 3638, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh has held that:
"For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, I reach the conclusion that the signature on the sanction should be proved either by the sanctioning authority or by his subordinate officer or clerk who has seen the sanctioning authority signing the sanction order or who is acquainted with the signature of the sanctioning authority. Merely filing the order purported to be the sanction order alleged to have been signed by the competent authority, does not discharge the burden of the prosecution in proving the sanction according to law."
28. Thus, it is clear that the mere placing on record of the complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C would not suffice and that it should have been proved like any other written document in accordance with Section 67 read with Section 47 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The mere exhibiting of said document does not assist the case of prosecution as it is well settled that exhibiting of the document does not imply its proof. Reliance is placed upon the Digitally P signed by P BHARGAV judgment of Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar RAO BHARGAV RAO Date:
2026.03.28 16:21:22 +0530 FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 21/25 State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
Jaiswal (2003) 8 SCC 745 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "the legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence that is by the 'evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue'". The prosecution has miserably failed on that front as the complaint has not been exhibited or marked by the prosecution. In such a scenario, the charge u/s 186 IPC fails and the accused is acquitted of the said offence as the complaint cannot be read in evidence.
29. With respect to the offence under Section 506 IPC, it is imperative to note that before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, considering the nature of the allegations leveled in the FIR, a prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC could said to have been found if the complainant had disclosed as to how such an alarm is caused to the complainant, however, the complainant had merely stated that the accused had threatened to kill him by uttering words "teri himmat kaise hui musalmano ko gaali dene ki" but the same falls short of causing any alarm to the complainant as no specific words of killing him have been mentioned by the complainant or the witnesses. It is not even remotely discernible that the threats allegedly advanced by the Digitally accused persons to complainant had caused any alarm to him. signed by P P BHARGAV BHARGAV RAO Thus, the offence under Section 506 IPC also does not stands Date:
RAO 2026.03.28
16:21:28
+0530
FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 22/25
State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
proved.
30. Coming to the last leg of our discussion, it has now to be seen if the accused had assaulted or used any criminal force to the victim during the execution of their duties so as to bring his act under the purview of Section 353 IPC. Criminal force is defined under Section 350 so as to mean intentional using of force to a person in order to commit offence or intending or knowing that by use of such force, injury, fear or annoyance would be caused to such person. Section 351 defines assault as making gesture or preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause the other person apprehend that criminal force is about to be used. The explanation to this provision clarifies that mere words do not amount to assault unless such words give his gesture or preparation such a meaning as to amount assault.
31. In the case at hand, the conjoint reading of all the oral and documentary evidence, particularly of PW1, victim and other eyewitnesses all have consistently deposed the manner and the circumstances in which the PW4 HC Ajay was assaulted by the accused persons. The torn uniform of the PW4 HC Ajay Kumar has been exhibited as Ex.PW1/P-1. Nothing has come in the cross-examination of all the witnesses to disbelief the fact that HC Ajay Kumar was caught hold and assaulted by the accused persons and during the process his uniform was torn.
32. Ld. Counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that there is a contradiction in the testimony of PW1 and PW2 as the Digitally PW2 fails to identify the accused Asif during his examination signed by P P BHARGAV RAO fails. He further argues that the DD entry made soon after the BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2026.03.28
16:21:38
+0530
FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 23/25
State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
incident does not mention any beatings or scuffle. The aforesaid contentions of the Ld. Counsel for accused does not hold water as the complainant and the witnesses stood the test of cross- examination. Though, Ld. Counsel for accused cross-examined all the witnesses at length, however, nothing useful for the case of the accused came forth. Though the witness PW2 failed to identify the accused Asif, however, the same does not harm the case of the prosecution as it must be appreciated that all the witnesses were examined almost after 09 years of the incident and minor inconsistencies are natural and are bound to occur due to lapse of time. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharnidhar Vs. State of U.P. (2020) 7 SCC 759. Further, nothing came out on record as to any motive for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused. Accordingly, this court does not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of the complainant and the witnesses which are consistent, cogent and reliable. Further, it is well- settled law that no particular number of witnesses are required to prove any fact, meaning thereby, it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence that matters. It is a well-known principle of evidence that evidence has to be weighed and not counted as delineated u/s 134 Indian Evidence Act. The Courts can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. (In this regard, reliance is placed upon, Jagdish Prasad v. State of MP 1995 SCC (Crl.) 160). The contention of the Ld. Counsel for accused that a bribe demand was made by PW1 and Digitally signed by the accused persons have been falsely implicated as they refused P P BHARGAV BHARGAV RAO to fulfill the illegal demand of PW1 remains unsubstantiated as RAO Date:
2026.03.28 16:21:44 +0530 FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 24/25 State Vs. Parvez Khureshi & Ors.
the said fact has been categorically denied by all the witnesses. The accused also could not bring on any record to show that there were consistent illegal gratification demands made by PW1 to the accused persons. The accused persons could not bring any independent witness to prove the alleged gratification demand despite the fact that the said incident occurred at his shop in a broad day light in the presence of other witnesses as alleged by the accused persons. The accused persons never made any complaint against the PW1. The fact that the accused persons have been running the meat shop for the 30 years and there is no previous complaint against them by itself does not absolve them automatically for offence under Section 353 IPC.
33. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt qua offence under Section 186/506(ii)/34 IPC. Accused persons are given benefit of doubt in this matter qua qua offence under Section 186/506(ii)/34 IPC, accordingly, accused namely Parvez Khureshi S/o Sh. Nasir Ali and Aasif Khureshi S/o Sh. Nasir Ali are hereby acquitted for offence punishable under Section 186/506(ii)/34 IPC. However, the prosecution proves the offence u/s 353 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the said accused persons are convicted for offence punishable under Section 353 IPC.
Announced in open court i.e. 28.03.2026. P Digitally signed
by P BHARGAV
RAO
BHARGAV Date:
2026.03.28
RAO 16:21:51
+0530
(P. Bhargav Rao)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-05 District East/Karkardooma Courts FIR No. 209/2009, PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 25/25