Delhi District Court
State vs Pradeep Kumar Etc on 21 April, 2026
Cr. Case3026/2017
STATE Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR ETC
FIR No.08/2013
(Darya Ganj)
Sections: 186/353/452 IPC
1
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAJ KUMAR SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Case3026/2017
STATE Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR ETC
FIR No.08/2013
(Darya Ganj)
Sections: 186/353/452 IPC
DLCT020067412017
JUDGMENT
(a) CIS No. 3026/2017
(b) Date of offence 12.01.2013
c) Complainant Suresh Chand, Bailiff, Kotwali
Sub Division, Office of District
Magistrate, Central-14, Darya
Ganj, Delhi
(d) Accused 1. Pradeep Kumar s/o. Pyare Lal r/o.74A, DDA Flats, Mata Sundari Road, IP Estate, New Delhi
2. Prem Chand s/o. Pyare Lal r/o.D-73, DDA Flats, Mata Sundari Road, IP Estate, New Delhi
3. Sushil Kumar s/o. Pyare Lal r/o. 74A, DDA Flats, Mata Sundari Road, IP Estate, New Delhi
4. Mohd. Kashif s/o. Fazalddin r/o. 1461, Gali Masjid Syyed Rafai, Bazar Chitli Qabar, PS Chandni Mahal, Delhi RAJ KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Cr. Case3026/2017 STATE Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR ETC FIR No.08/2013 (Darya Ganj) Sections: 186/353/452 IPC 2
(e) Offence 186/353/452 IPC
(f) Plea of accused Not pleaded guilty
(g) Final Order Acquitted
(h) Date of Institution 15.03.2017
(i) Date when judgment was 18.04.2026 reserved
(j) Date of judgment 21.04.2026
1. The present case arises out of FIR No. 08/2013, PS Darya Ganj. The four accused sent up for trial are Pradeep Kumar, Prem Chand, Sushil Kumar and Mohd. Kashif. After the proceedings on charge were completed, charge was framed against all of them for offences punishable under Sections 186/34 IPC and 506 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. As per the prosecution, on 12.01.2013, Suresh Chand, who was posted as Bailiff in Kotwali Sub-Division, Office of the District Magistrate, Central, 14 Darya Ganj, New Delhi, was on duty in terms of order no. SDM/KOT/Misc./2013/518-520 dated 11.01.2013 for clearing the pendency of income certificates. It is alleged that at about 6:45 PM on that day, the four accused persons, along with 15 to 20 unknown persons, entered the office complex without authority, obstructed government work, banged on office tables, threatened the complainant with dire consequences if certificates were not handed over, and that accused Mohd. Kashif also threatened to immolate himself if the certificate was not issued to him. On these allegations, the present FIR came to be registered. During investigation, the Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case3026/2017 STATE Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR ETC FIR No.08/2013 (Darya Ganj) Sections: 186/353/452 IPC 3 accused were arrested, the relevant memos were prepared, and later a complaint under Section 195 CrPC was obtained from the competent authority. On that basis, the charge sheet was filed.
3. The record further shows that after filing of the charge sheet, cognizance was taken on 25.03.2017 for offences under Sections 353/452/506/34 IPC and also for offence under Section 186 IPC on the basis of the complaint under Section 195 CrPC. Copies of documents were supplied to the accused in compliance with Section 207 CrPC. Thereafter, arguments on charge were heard. The learned predecessor of this Court had expressed doubt regarding the applicability of Sections 353 and 452 IPC. Upon consideration of the charge sheet, the accompanying documents, and the submissions made on both sides, it was held vide order dated 04.08.2022 that the ingredients of Sections 353 and 452 IPC were not made out. Accordingly, charge was framed only under Sections 186/34 IPC and 506 IPC against all four accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During trial, the accused also admitted the genuineness of certain formal documents under Section 294 CrPC, namely, copy of FIR as Ex. AD1, certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. AD2, endorsement on rukka as Ex. AD3 and DD No. 27A as Ex. AD4. In view of this admission, the corresponding formal witness was dropped.
5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. RAJ KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Cr. Case3026/2017 STATE Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR ETC FIR No.08/2013 (Darya Ganj) Sections: 186/353/452 IPC 4 Since the matter turns mainly on appreciation of their evidence, it is necessary to notice their depositions in some detail.
6. PW1 Suresh Chand is the complainant. He deposed that on 12.01.2013 he was working as Bailiff at the SDM Office, Kotwali Sub Division, under the order of the SDM, and that income certificates were being processed as they had to be submitted in schools before 15.01.2013. He stated that at about 6:30 PM to 6:45 PM, around 20 to 25 persons entered the office of the Tehsildar and started creating hue and cry and pressurising the officials to hand over income certificates on that very day. He further stated that thereafter he returned to his room and did not know what happened after that. He stated that later the police came and the present complaint was lodged in his name, which is Ex. PW1/A, but he had not read its contents before signing it and did not know who had prepared it. He said that he signed it at the direction of the Tehsildar. Most importantly, he stated that he could not identify any person present in court as one of the persons who had created nuisance on that day.
7. Since PW1 did not support the prosecution on material aspects, he was cross-examined by the learned APP. Even in such cross- examination, he did not support the prosecution on the identity of the accused or on the allegation of threats. He stated that he could not say whether Mohd. Kashif, Pradeep Kumar, Sushil Kumar and Prem Chand were present in the office at the relevant time. He denied the suggestion that the said persons, Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case3026/2017 STATE Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR ETC FIR No.08/2013 (Darya Ganj) Sections: 186/353/452 IPC 5 along with 20 to 25 others, threatened to kill him if the certificates were not handed over. He also denied the suggestion that Mohd. Kashif had stated that he would immolate himself if the certificate was not handed over. He further denied that the accused were apprehended or arrested in his presence. When his attention was drawn towards the accused persons in court, he failed to identify them as the persons involved in the incident.
8. PW2 Parveen Kumar deposed that on the relevant date he was posted as LDC in the office of SDM Kotwali and had come to office in connection with clearance of pending work. He stated that some persons were standing outside the office, shouting and pushing the door. He further stated that when the police came and the gate was opened, 40 to 50 persons entered the office without permission and started shouting inside. He stated that those persons then entered the room of the Tehsildar, and that thereafter he returned to his certificate section and later went home. Beyond this, he claimed no further knowledge of the matter.
9. PW2 was also cross-examined by the learned APP. In that cross-
examination, he stated that he had seen the faces of the mob but did not remember them because of lapse of time. He denied that the mob had threatened to kill or beat them. He stated that he did not know whether Mohd. Kashif had said that he would set himself on fire if he did not get the certificate. He denied that the accused were apprehended in his presence or that any arrest memos or other documents were prepared in his presence. He Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case3026/2017 STATE Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR ETC FIR No.08/2013 (Darya Ganj) Sections: 186/353/452 IPC 6 refused to identify the accused in court and also answered in the negative when specifically asked whether the persons present in court were the same persons who had been apprehended on the date of the incident.
10. PW3 Praveen Bhargav, the then Tehsildar in the SDM Office, Kotwali, deposed that on 12.01.2013 he was working in office under the relevant order for clearing pending work. He stated that at about 5:30 PM, about 15 to 20 persons were standing outside the office and pushing the main entrance door and asking for issuance of EWS/income certificates. He stated that since that day was a Sunday, the staff refused to issue any certificate and asked them to come on a working day. According to him, those persons became angry and agitated and called the police. He further stated that when the police came and asked for the door to be opened, those persons also entered the office forcefully and started shouting for the income certificates, and when no certificate was issued, they left the place.
11. PW3 also did not support the prosecution on the question of identity or criminal intimidation. In cross-examination by the learned APP, he stated that he did not know whether the mob threatened Bailiff Suresh Chand for not issuing certificates. He admitted that government work was obstructed because of the incident, but denied that the persons had pushed or used force against any staff member. He also denied having heard accused Mohd. Kashif say that he would put himself on fire if the certificate was not issued. He denied that he had disclosed the RAJ KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case3026/2017 STATE Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR ETC FIR No.08/2013 (Darya Ganj) Sections: 186/353/452 IPC 7 names of all accused to the IO or that he had identified them at the time of the incident. He refused to identify the accused persons present in court and stated that he could not identify them due to lapse of time.
12. PW4 Akhil Kumar, who had been posted as SDM Kotwali on 23.12.2016, proved the complaint under Section 195 CrPC made by him to the Court, which is Ex. PW4/A. In cross- examination, he fairly stated that he had made the complaint in his official capacity, that he had no personal knowledge of the facts of the case, and that the complaint was made on the request of the department.
13. PW5 Retired ASI Dev Raj deposed that on 12.01.2013 he was posted as Constable at PS Darya Ganj and on receipt of DD No. 27A he accompanied the IO to the spot, namely, SDM Office, Mata Sundari Road, Darya Ganj. He stated that upon reaching the spot, they met the complainant, who told them that accused Prem Chand, Sushil Kumar and Pradeep Kumar had obstructed him in discharge of his official duty. He further deposed that the IO arrested those three accused persons and he proved their arrest memos as Ex. PW5/A, Ex. PW5/B and Ex. PW5/C and their personal search memos as Ex. PW5/D, Ex. PW5/E and Ex. PW5/F. He identified the accused persons present in court. In cross-examination, he stated that they reached the spot at about 6:38 PM and remained there for about one and a half hours. He did not remember the time when the accused were arrested. He also did not remember to whom information of arrest was given. Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case3026/2017 STATE Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR ETC FIR No.08/2013 (Darya Ganj) Sections: 186/353/452 IPC 8 He stated that they had gone to the spot on the private scooter of the IO, but he did not remember its registration number.
14. PW6 Retired SI Ishwar Singh deposed that on 27.12.2014 he was posted as ASI at PS Darya Ganj and that further investigation of the case was marked to him. He stated that after discussion with the SHO, he added Section 452 IPC in the charge sheet and thereafter, on his transfer to PCR, handed over the case file to the MHC(R). His evidence is confined to that aspect.
15. PW7 Retired SI Usman Ali deposed that in December 2016 he was posted as SI at PS Darya Ganj and further investigation of the present case was marked to him. He stated that during investigation he wrote a letter to SDM Kotwali for sanction under Section 195 CrPC and that the same was accorded by way of complaint already exhibited as Ex. PW4/A. He further stated that after concluding investigation, he prepared the challan and filed the charge sheet in court.
16. PW8 Retired SI Khem Chand is the first IO. He deposed that on 12.01.2013 he was posted as ASI at PS Darya Ganj and that after registration of FIR on the complaint made by Suresh Chand, the investigation was marked to him. He stated that he, along with Ct. Dev Raj, reached SDM Office, Kotwali, Darya Ganj, met the complainant, and at his instance prepared the site plan Ex. PW8/A. He further deposed that three accused persons, namely, Sushil Kumar, Prem Chand and Pradeep Kumar, were present at the spot and were interrogated and arrested vide RAJ KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case3026/2017 STATE Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR ETC FIR No.08/2013 (Darya Ganj) Sections: 186/353/452 IPC 9 memos already Ex. PW5/A to Ex. PW5/C, and that their personal search was conducted vide memos already Ex. PW5/F, Ex. PW5/E and Ex. PW5/D. He also deposed that on 17.01.2013 the fourth accused Mohd. Kashif was called to the police station and formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW8/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW8/C. He further proved the request for permission under Section 195 CrPC as Ex. PW8/D and the communication received from the SDM office dated 20.03.2013 as Ex. PW8/E. He identified all the accused persons in court. In cross- examination, he denied the suggestions that the site plan was not prepared at the instance of the complainant or that the accused had been falsely implicated.
17. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, separate statements of all the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC read with Sections 316 and 351 BNSS. The incriminating material was put to them. All the accused denied the allegations and claimed false implication. Their stand was consistent, namely, that they had not obstructed any government servant, had not threatened anybody, and had been falsely implicated due to the crowd and surrounding circumstances. They chose not to lead any defence evidence.
18. Final arguments were then heard. Learned APP for the State argued that the incident of obstruction in a government office stood proved from the testimonies of the official witnesses and that the evidence of the police witnesses established the role of Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case3026/2017 STATE Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR ETC FIR No.08/2013 (Darya Ganj) Sections: 186/353/452 IPC 10 the accused. On the other hand, learned defence counsel submitted that the complainant and the material eye witnesses had not supported the prosecution on the identity of the accused or on the allegation of threats, and that conviction could not be recorded merely on the testimony of police officials in the face of such serious deficiencies.
19. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record.
20. Since the accused have been charged for offences under Sections 186/34 IPC and 506 IPC, it is necessary to first notice the ingredients of these offences. For Section 186 IPC, the prosecution must prove that there was voluntary obstruction, that the obstruction was caused to a public servant, and that such public servant was discharging public functions at the relevant time. Since the charge is read with Section 34 IPC, the prosecution must also prove that the accused acted in furtherance of their common intention. For Section 506 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused criminally intimidated the complainant by threatening him with injury to person, reputation or property, and that such threat was intended to cause alarm or to compel the complainant to do or omit something which he was legally entitled to do or omit. In the present case, the identity of the accused as the persons who committed the acts complained of is a foundational requirement. Unless that is proved, the remaining ingredients cannot carry the prosecution to a conviction.
RAJ KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Cr. Case3026/2017 STATE Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR ETC FIR No.08/2013 (Darya Ganj) Sections: 186/353/452 IPC 11
21. On a careful reading of the evidence, there is material on record to show that some incident did take place at the SDM office on 12.01.2013. PW1, PW2 and PW3 have all deposed, in one form or another, that a number of persons had come to the office, were shouting, demanding income certificates, pushing doors, and that disturbance took place in the office premises. PW3 has also stated that government work stood obstructed due to the incident. Therefore, the broad fact that some commotion took place in the SDM office and that there was disruption in official work does emerge from the record.
22. However, that by itself is not enough. The Court must still be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the four accused before it were the very persons who obstructed the complainant and criminally intimidated him.
23. It is on this vital aspect that the prosecution case suffers from a serious deficiency. PW1, the complainant himself, did not support the prosecution on identity. He clearly stated that he did not remember the name of any of the persons gathered there. He specifically stated that he could not identify any person present in court as one of the persons who had created nuisance. Even when cross-examined by the learned APP, he did not support the allegation that these four accused were present there or that they had threatened him. He denied the suggestion that Mohd. Kashif had threatened to immolate himself. He also denied that the accused were apprehended or arrested in his presence. This part of his evidence materially weakens the prosecution case. Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case3026/2017 STATE Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR ETC FIR No.08/2013 (Darya Ganj) Sections: 186/353/452 IPC 12
24. PW2 Parveen Kumar also did not identify any of the accused. Though he spoke about a mob entering the office and shouting, he expressly stated that he did not remember their faces because of lapse of time. He denied that the accused were apprehended in his presence or that any arrest documents were prepared in his presence. He also did not support the allegation of threats. He refused to identify the accused in court. Thus, his evidence also does not connect the accused with the offences charged.
25. PW3 Praveen Bhargav, the then Tehsildar and another important witness from the office itself, also did not support the prosecution on identity. He refused to identify the accused persons present in court. He stated that he did not know whether the mob threatened the complainant, denied use of force against the staff, and denied that he had named the accused before the IO. He also denied hearing any statement from Mohd. Kashif regarding self-immolation. His evidence, therefore, also does not establish the role of the accused in the incident.
26. The combined effect of the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 is that while they do show that some disturbance took place in the office by a group of persons demanding certificates, they do not establish that the present accused were among those persons. These were the natural and material witnesses from the office itself. Their failure to identify the accused is not a minor discrepancy. It goes to the root of the prosecution case.
27. It is true that PW5 Retired ASI Dev Raj and PW8 Retired SI Khem Chand have supported the prosecution and deposed that RAJ KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case3026/2017 STATE Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR ETC FIR No.08/2013 (Darya Ganj) Sections: 186/353/452 IPC 13 accused Pradeep Kumar, Prem Chand and Sushil Kumar were apprehended at the spot and that Mohd. Kashif was later formally arrested. They also identified the accused in court. But their testimony has to be appreciated in the light of the evidence of the complainant and the office witnesses. PW5 and PW8 stated that the complainant disclosed the names of the accused and that the accused were arrested in connection with the incident. However, PW1 denied that the accused were apprehended or arrested in his presence. PW2 also denied that the accused were handed over or arrested in his presence. PW3 too did not support the naming or identification of the accused. In these circumstances, the police version regarding the source and manner of identification of the accused does not receive support from the natural witnesses present at the spot.
28. In the present case, the crowd allegedly consisted of 15 to 20 persons, and in some parts of the evidence even 20 to 25 or 40 to 50 persons. Where the prosecution seeks to single out four particular accused from a large crowd, reliable identification becomes all the more important. No test identification parade is shown to have been conducted. The three office witnesses, including the complainant, did not identify the accused in court. In such circumstances, it would not be safe to base conviction only on the testimony of the police witnesses, especially when the persons who were actually present in the office and were said to be affected by the incident do not connect the accused to it.
RAJ KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case3026/2017 STATE Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR ETC FIR No.08/2013 (Darya Ganj) Sections: 186/353/452 IPC 14
29. The allegation under Section 506 IPC stands on even weaker footing. The prosecution case is that the accused threatened the complainant with dire consequences and that accused Mohd. Kashif threatened to immolate himself if the certificate was not handed over. However, PW1 did not support these allegations and specifically denied them when confronted by the prosecution. PW2 denied that the mob had threatened to kill or beat them and stated that he did not know whether Mohd. Kashif made any such statement. PW3 also stated that he did not know whether the complainant was threatened and denied hearing any statement by Mohd. Kashif regarding self- immolation. Thus, the allegation of criminal intimidation is not proved through substantive evidence.
30. As far as Section 186 IPC is concerned, the prosecution has certainly proved that PW1 was a public servant and was present in the office for discharge of official duties on the relevant day. The office order and the depositions of PW1, PW2 and PW3 support that part of the case. It also appears from the evidence that some disturbance occurred in the office. But the essential and most critical element, namely, that these accused persons voluntarily caused such obstruction, has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mere proof of a crowd incident cannot by itself result in conviction of the named accused unless their participation is clearly established.
31. The complaint under Section 195 CrPC, proved by PW4 as Ex.
PW4/A, satisfies the procedural requirement for cognizance of Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case3026/2017 STATE Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR ETC FIR No.08/2013 (Darya Ganj) Sections: 186/353/452 IPC 15 offence under Section 186 IPC. However, PW4 himself had no personal knowledge of the facts and made the complaint only in his official capacity on departmental request. Such complaint is necessary for taking cognizance, but it is not substantive evidence of the guilt of the accused.
32. The documents admitted by the accused under Section 294 CrPC are only formal documents. By such admission, the accused merely admitted their genuineness. They did not admit the truth of the allegations contained in those documents. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against them on the core facts in issue.
33. It is settled law that the prosecution must stand on its own legs and prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. It is also settled that where material witnesses do not support the prosecution on identity and on the basic allegations constituting the offence, the Court must exercise caution before acting upon the remaining evidence, especially where that evidence comes from official or police witnesses and lacks independent corroboration.
34. In the present case, the part of the prosecution evidence that can safely be accepted is only this, that on 12.01.2013 some disturbance took place at the SDM office when a number of persons came demanding income certificates and some official work was obstructed. But the evidence does not go further and prove that the present accused persons were the ones who Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case3026/2017 STATE Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR ETC FIR No.08/2013 (Darya Ganj) Sections: 186/353/452 IPC 16 voluntarily obstructed the complainant in discharge of his public functions or that they criminally intimidated him. The testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 materially weaken the prosecution case on these aspects. The evidence of PW5 and PW8, though supporting the prosecution, does not inspire such confidence as would be necessary to overcome the serious deficiency left by the non-supportive and non-identifying testimony of the material witnesses.
35. In their statements under Section 313 CrPC read with Sections 316 and 351 BNSS, the accused denied the allegations and claimed false implication. They did not lead defence evidence. In the facts of the present case, the burden never shifted upon them. The prosecution having failed to establish the essential ingredients of the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt.
36. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Pradeep Kumar, Prem Chand, Sushil Kumar and Mohd. Kashif, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily obstructed complainant Suresh Chand while he was discharging his duties as a public servant, or that they criminally intimidated him. The essential ingredients of Sections 186/34 IPC and 506 IPC are, therefore, not established against the accused persons.
37. Resultantly, all the accused persons, namely, Pradeep Kumar, Prem Chand, Sushil Kumar and Mohd. Kashif, are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 186/34 IPC and 506 Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case3026/2017 STATE Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR ETC FIR No.08/2013 (Darya Ganj) Sections: 186/353/452 IPC 17 IPC.
38. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
39. Judgment be uploaded as per rules.
Digitally
RAJ signed by
Announced in open court KUMAR RAJ
on 21.04.2026 SINGH KUMAR
SINGH
(Dr. Raj Kumar Singh)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central Delhi/21.04.2026 Note: This judgment contains 17 (Seventeen) pages and having my signature on each page. RAJ Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJ KUMAR SINGH SINGH (Dr. Raj Kumar Singh) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central Delhi/21.04.2026