Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Manish Sharma on 3 September, 2025

         IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
        CLASS-08 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
        PRESIDING OFFICER: MS. SAYESHA CHADHA, DJS
                                  FIR No. 132/2019
                                  PS : Kotwali
                                  U/s 323/341/506(II) IPC
                                  State vs. Manish Sharma and
                                  Ors.

                       Date of Institution of case: 28.10.2020
                       Date when Judgment reserved: 31.07.2025
                       Date on which Judgment pronounced: 03.09.2025

                                   JUDGMENT

A. Case No.                                   : 7368/2020
B. Date of Institution of Case                : 28.10.2020
C. Date of Commission of Offence              : 22.04.2019
D. Name of the complainant                    : Dhruv Rastogi

E. Name of the Accused : 1. Manish Sharma S/o Late & his parentage and residence Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma,

2. Mayank Sharma s/o Sh.

Rajeev Sharma,

3. Rajeev Sharma s/o Late Sh.

Ramesh Chand Sharma, All R/o 2950, Katra Khushal Rai, Kinari Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.

F. Offences complained of                     : U/s 323/341/506(II) Indian
                                              Penal Code
G. Plea of the Accused                        : Pleaded not guilty
H. Final order                                : Conviction
I. Date of such order                         : 03.09.2025
State Vs. Manish Sharma and Ors.
FIR No. 132/2019
PS Kotwali
                                                                        1/18

Brief statement of reasons for decision of the case:

1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 22.04.2019 at about 12.00 AM, at Paranthe Wali Gali, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, accused persons in furtherence of common intention voluntarily obstructed and intentionally caused simple hurt to the complainants, namely, Dhruva Rastogi and Milan Rastogi and criminally intimidated to kill them and thereby committing an offence punishable u/s 323/341/506(II) Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as IPC).

2. Upon conclusion of investigation, a final report was filed before the court on 28.10.2020 against all accused persons. Cognizance of offence punishable U/s 323/341/506(II)/34 IPC was taken. Upon summoning, the accused persons appeared and copies of charge sheet were supplied to all the accused in compliance of Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C). Thereafter, charge for offence punishable u/s 323/341/506(II) IPC was framed against all accused to which they pleaded not guilty and opted for trial.

3. Thereafter, the prosecution was given the opportunity to substantiate the allegations against the accused. The prosecution examined 6 (Six) witnesses in support of its case:

4. PW-1 Dhruv Rastogi has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 21.04.2019, at around 12 mid night, he along with his brother Milan Rashtogi reached at paranthe wali gali before the shop of the accused Manish Sharma, Rajiv Sharma and Mayank Sharma where his Activa scooty bearing no. DL8SCV7291 got State Vs. Manish Sharma and Ors.

PS Kotwali 2/18 skid. Mayank Sharma asked him that 'daru pee ke gadi chalate hein' and also started abusing them. They asked why did you abuse them. Thereafter, Mayank Sharma raised hand to hit him and after that Rajiv Sharma and Manish Sharma gave beating to them. He along with his brother tried to run away at that spot. Then again, Manish Sharma, Rajiv Sharma and Mayank Sharma stopped their way. Mayank Sharma asked to Manish Sharma to take out the gun and shoot them. Accused Mayank Sharma, Manish Sharma and Rajiv Sharma already have a knife in their hands from which they tried to hit them. On the day of incident, a lot public persons were gathered at that point of time and they tried to settle the matter. In the meanwhile, he also called at 100 number. After 10 to 15 minutes police officials came at the spot and took them the PS Kotwali. Their medical examination was conducted at AAA hospital. Ct. Daya Ram accompanied them to the said hospital. Then they again came at the PS and narrated the incident to the police officials and also gave a written complaint Ex.PW1/A which bears his signatures at point A. He correctly identified all the accused persons. Arrest memos and personal search memos of the accused persons namely Manish Sharma, Rajiv Sharma and Mayank Sharma were shown to the witness exhibited as Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/G bearing his signatures at point A respectively.

5. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-1 stated that he had not stated before the police regarding the vehicle number but he stated that the vehicle was active scooty. He admitted that the facts of active scooty are not State Vs. Manish Sharma and Ors.

PS Kotwali 3/18 mentioned in his statement but it was written as 'scooter'. He admitted that he had mentioned to the police that the accused Mayank Sharma stated 'daru pee ke gadi chalate hein' confronted with the statement Ex.PW1/A where name of the accused Mayank Sharma was not mentioned. He admitted that the fact of hitting by knife by accused to them was not mentioned in his statement. His mobile number is 9958629652. He made the 100 number call from the said mobile number. He denied that he had made a call 100 no. regarding 10 to 15 public persons were giving beating him and his brother. He denied that public persons were giving beating them not the accused persons. His brother was doing a job but he did not know what and where he was doing job. They have never stated that his brother was a law student. He admitted that the area was a thickly populated place but at 12 mid night there were not much crowded. He did not know whether the shops in that locality have CCTV cameras installed. He and his family members are not accused in any case. Neither any case have been filed or registered against them. He denied that accused Manish Sharma, Rajiv Sharma and Mayank Sharma never assaulted him, abused him. He denied that the accused never have any knife in their hands. He denied that Mayank Sharma never asked Manish Sharma to take out gun and shoot them. He denied that he was deposing falsely.

6. PW-3 Milan Rastogi has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 21.04.2019, at around between 11:30 to 11:45 PM, he along with his brother Dhurv Rastogi went to Old Delhi Railway Station on his Activa Scooter to bring the food. At around 12:00 AM, he State Vs. Manish Sharma and Ors.

PS Kotwali 4/18 along with his brother Dhruv Rastogi was coming back and going towards to his house after taking the food from old delhi railway station. Suddenly, his scooter got slipped at Parate Wali Gali where Manish Sharma, Mayank Sharma and Rajiv Sharma were standing. In the meanwhile, Mayank Sharma passed a comment on them "saale Daru pikar chalte hain" and started abusing them then they asked why did Manish Sahrma abuse them, thereafter Mayank Sharma hit his brother Dhruv Rastogi by his hand and after that Rajiv Sharma and Manish Sharma also gave beating to them. Thereafter, accused Mayank Sharma asked Manish Sharma take out the gun and shot them. Manish Sharma, Mayank Sharma and Rajiv were already having a knife in their hand and from which they tried to hit them. Suddenly, public were gathered at the spot and tried to save them from the accused persons. In the meantime, his brother Dhruv Rastogi called at 100 number. After 10 to 15 minutes, police came at the spot and took them to the PS Kotwali thereafter their medical examination was conducted at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and Ct. Dayaram accompanied them to the hospital. Then they again came back to the PS Kotwali and narrate the whole incident to the police officials. On 22.04.2019, all the accused were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/B,Ex. PW-1/C,Ex. PW-1/D and same were signed by his brother Dhurv Rastogi. IO recorded his statement. He correctly identified all the accused persons.

7. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-3 admitted that he stated to the police officials that they left their house between 11:30 PM to 11:45 PM State Vs. Manish Sharma and Ors.

PS Kotwali 5/18 confronted with the statement Mark 'X'. He had not mentioned the brand name of the scooter i.e., Activa. He had not mentioned in his statement that this incident happened while he was returning back after purchasing food. He had not mentioned the fact that Mayank Sharma passed a comment to them. Same confronted with the statement Mark 'X'. His brother dial 100 no. from his mobile phone. He denied that in that call his brother had stated that 10 to 15 persons were beating them. There were about 7-8 public people at the spot. He admitted that police officials reached at the spot in his presence. He did not know that whether police officials inquired the public persons or not. He was a law student and left the course in between. He do not know that whether any CCTV Camera was installed or not at the spot. He denied that he sustained the injury due to the fall of his scooter. The accused persons had hit them with punches, nails and kicks. He denied that a person who was having knife in their hand cannot hit a person by punches and nails. He did not know the accused persons prior to the incident. The accused persons disclosed their names in the police station. He denied that accused Manish Sharma, Rajiv Sharma and Mayank Sharma have never assult and abuse him. He denied that accused never have the knife in their hand. He denied that Mayank Sharma never asked Manish Sharma to take out the gun and shot them. He denied that accused persons are falsely implicated in the present case. He denied that he was deposing falsely.

8. PW-4 Dr. Ruchita Ghiloria has deposed in his examination- in-chief that on 22.04.2019, he was working as casualty medical State Vs. Manish Sharma and Ors.

PS Kotwali 6/18 officer at AAA Government hospital. He has been working at AAA Government Hospital since 2014 till September, 2021. On 22.04.2019 at about 1:30 am, he medically examined the victim/patient namely Dhruv Rastogi vide MLC bearing registration no. 1603/19. After primary examination and treatment, he given his opinion about the nature of injury as simple, fresh, blunt. The aforesaid MLC Ex.PW4/A bearing his signatures at point A and his opinion is at point B. On 22.04.2019 at about 1:32 am, he medically examined the victim/patient namely Milan vide MLC bearing registration no. 1604/19. After primary examination and treatment, he given his opinion about the nature of injury as simple, fresh, blunt. The aforesaid MLC Ex.PW4/B bearing his signatures at point A and his opinion is at point B. Both the patients were fit for statement.

9. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-4 stated that they do alcohol detection only when they feel it necessary or at the special request of the IO concerned or the persons brought by. He admitted that no alcohol detection was done of both the patients as no request was made in this regard and he found it not necessary after examining patient / victim. He voluntarily stated that the patients were conscious oriented. It may be possible that the injuries mentioned in the both the MLCs may have happened while falling down from the scooter / two wheeler. He voluntarily stated that other modes of blunt injury also cannot be denied. After examining both the patients, he had not found any symptom of alcohol in both the patients. The symptoms of alcohol State Vs. Manish Sharma and Ors.

PS Kotwali 7/18 cannot be vanished within 4 hours of the consumption of the alcohol irrespective of the type and quantity of alcohol consumption. He denied that he was deposing falsely.

10. PW-5 HC Anand has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 22.04.2019, after receiving DD No.3A at about 12:16 am, he alongwith IO/SI Rahul Singh went to the spot i.e. Gali Paranthe Wali, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. On reaching there, they found that the crowd was gathered near the spot. On inquiry, it was found that all the accused persons namely Rajeev Sharma, Mayank Sharma and Manish Sharma have beaten the complainant namely Dhruv Rastogi and his brother Milan Rastogi. Thereafter, he alongwith IO took both the complainant and his brother and all the three above said accused persons to PS. After that both the complainant and his brother were sent to AAA Hospital for the medical examination through constable Daya Ram. On the MLCs of the both the doctor opined the nature of injury as simple fresh, blunt and fit for statement. Thereafter, both of them came back to the PS and IO recorded the statement of complainant Dhruv Rastogi and registered the FIR. Thereafter, IO arrested all the three accused persons at the instance of the complainant vide arrest memos Ex.PW-1/B, Ex.PW-1/C and Ex.PW-1/D all bearing his signature at point B and carried out their personal search vide memos Ex.PW-1/E, Ex.PW-1/F and Ex.PW-1/G all bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, accused persons released on police bail. IO recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC and he was discharged. He correctly identified all the accused persons.

State Vs. Manish Sharma and Ors.

PS Kotwali 8/18

11. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-5 admitted that incident do not took place in his presence. He denied that he had not joined the investigation in the present case. There was no CCTV camera installed at the spot. He denied that he was deposing falsely.

12. PW-6 SI Rahul has deposed in his examination-in-chief that in intervening night of 21/22.04.2019, he was on emergency duty from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am. On that day, after receiving DD no. 3A, he along with Ct. Anand went to the spot i.e., Parathe Wali Gali, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. On reaching the spot, he made the complainant Dhruv Rastogi along with his brother, namely, Milan Rastogi and also met accused persons, namely, Manish Sharma, Mayank Sharma and Rajeev Sharma at the spot. The complainant told him that the abovesaid accused persons had beaten him and his brother Milan. He along with co-staff, the complainant, his brother and the abovesaid accused persons came to PS Kotwali. Thereafter, both the complainant and his brother were got medically examined at AAA hospital who were taken by Ct. Daya Ram. Thereafter, Ct.Daya Ram after collecting the MLCs of the complainant and his brother, came back at the PS along with them and handed over me the abovesaid MLCs. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of complainant Dhruv Rastogi Ex.PW1/A and prepared tehrir / rukka Ex.PW6/A bearing his signature at point A and got the FIR registered. Thereafter, he along with complainant went to the spot and prepared the site plan of the spot at his instance Ex.PW6/B bearing his signature at point A. They came back at the PS and he State Vs. Manish Sharma and Ors.

PS Kotwali 9/18 arrested all the accused persons and carried out their personal search vide memos Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G all bearing his signature at point C. All the accused persons were released on police bail. Thereafter, he recorded the supplementary statement of complainant and recorded the statement of Milan Rastogi and Ct. Anand. On completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet before the concerned court. He correctly identified all the accused persons.

13. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for accused persons, PW-6 stated that he reached at the spot at about 12.30 am. Witness shown three DD entries bearing Ex.A4, Ex.A5 and Ex.A6. He voluntarily stated that initially, he got DD no.3A on which he carried out the investigation. He admitted that DD no.3A bears the details "10-15 aadmi mil kar caller aur uske bhai ko maar rahe hai". He had not obtained opinion from the doctor regarding whether the injury caused to the complainant was due to slip of scooter or not. The DD no. 5A and 6A Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 were made by the accused persons. He cannot say whether the number 8826166381 belongs to none of the accused persons or their known. When he first visited the spot, he brought the complainant and his brother and all the accused persons to PS and at that time had not joined any public person in the investigation who were present at the spot after the incident when he reached there. When he again visited the spot along with the complainant, no public persons were present there. He admitted that the spot was market area. The spot was not covered by any of the CCTV camera. He State Vs. Manish Sharma and Ors.

PS Kotwali 10/18 had not mentioned the above fact in charge-sheet. He did not know whether the shopkeepers of the said area have kept security guards for their shop or not. He had not investigated the fact that even on earlier occasion the complainant and his brother had confrontations with other people of the locality as a result of which, number of complaints and FIR have been lodged against them. He denied that all the accused persons are falsely implicated in this case. He denied that he had not carried out investigation in fair manner. He denied that he intentionally avoided to record the statement of public persons and also to collect the CCTV of the incident. He denied that he was deposing falsely.

14. Vide joint statement of all accused persons recorded u/s 294 CrPC, the accused persons admitted the factum of registration of FIR Ex.A-1, endorsement on rukka Ex.A-2, certificate u/s 65(b) IEA Ex.A-3, DD no.3A Ex.A-4, DD no.5A Ex.A-5 and DD no.6A Ex.A-6 without admitting the contents of the same.

15. The prosecution evidence was closed on 20.06.2024 and the statement of all the accused was recorded under Section 313 read with section 281 of CrPC on 31.07.2024, wherein they pleaded their innocence and stated to have been falsely implicated. The accused persons have opted to lead defence evidence.

16. Accused persons examined 2 (two) witnesses in support of its case :

17. DW-1 Harshit Yadav has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 22.04.2019 at about 10:20-30 pm, he was returning from nature calls then he saw two boys were fighting with accused State Vs. Manish Sharma and Ors.

PS Kotwali 11/18 persons. Thereafter, crowd gathered. The accused persons were inside their shop where was the both the boys were on their scooty on the road and was fighting from there. Thereafter when the crowd started gathering he left the place. Till, he was present their the accused persons did not steps out from their shop.

18. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. APP for State, DW-1 stated that he did not remember the name of the accused persons. His shop no was B-45 Main Road, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. He used to reached at his shop at around 09:00 am and he left the shop at around 10:30 pm regularly. The shop number of the accused persons was 34, Gali Paranthe wali, Delhi. He admitted that accused persons were known to him prior to the incident. He denied that he was interested witness and that why he was deposing in favour of the accused persons. He denied that he was deposing falsely.

19. DW-2 Ram Kishan Sharma has deposed in his examination- in-chief that he used to sale jewellery box from shop number 348, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. On 22.04.2019 at between 10:30 pm to 11:00 pm, he was returning from Temple then he saw two boys were fighting with public at large and accused persons were inside their shop. Thereafter, he left the spot.

20. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. APP for State, DW-2 stated that he used to reach at his shop at around 10:30 am and he left the shop at around 07:30 pm regularly. He voluntarily stated that he used to went to Temple situated near the incident. The shop number of the accused persons was 34, Gali State Vs. Manish Sharma and Ors.

PS Kotwali 12/18 Paranthe wali, Delhi. He admitted that accused persons were known to him prior to the incident. He denied that he was interested witness and that why he was deposing in favour of the accused persons. He denied that he was deposing falsely.

21. The defence evidence was closed on 03.12.2024 Final arguments were heard. I have cogitated over the submissions made by ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.

DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREON:

22. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for state and the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and carefully perused the documents on record.

23. In order to ensure convenient appraisal of evidence, the following points of determination have been framed.

1. Whether the accused persons, on 22.04.2019, at about 12.00 am, at Paranthe Wali Gali, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed, intentionally caused simple hurt and criminally intimidated the complainant Dhruv Rastogi and victim Milan Rastogi.

24. The burden to prove the above point of determination beyond reasonable doubt shall be on the prosecution.

25. The complainant PW-1 has categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that on 21.04.2019, at about 12.00 midnight, he along with his brother, Milan Rastogi reached at Paranthe Wali Gali, before the shop of the accused Manish Sharma, Rajeev State Vs. Manish Sharma and Ors.

PS Kotwali 13/18 Sharma and Mayank Sharma where his activa scooty bearing no. DL-8SCV-7291 got skid. Accused Mayank Sharma asked him if he was driving the scooty after consuming alcohol. All the accused persons started abusing him and his brother Milan. Accused Mayank Sharma raised his hand to hit him and accused Rajeev Sharma and Manish Sharma gave beatings to him as well as his brother. When they tried to run away from the spot, all the accused persons stopped their way. Thereafter, accused Mayank Sharma asked Manish Sharma to take out the gun and shoot the complainant and his brother. He has also stated that all the accused persons already had a knife in their hands from which they tried to hit his brother. A lot of public persons gathered at the spot who tried to settle the matter. Meanwhile, he called the police who came at the spot within 10-15 minutes. The witness has attested his signature on the written complaint Ex.PW1/A and the arrest memos Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/G.

26. PW-3 Milan Rastogi has corroborated the version of the complainant.

27. PW-4 Dr.Ruchita has attested her signatures on the MLCs ExPW4/A and Ex.PW4/B stating that the nature of injuries were found to be simple, fresh and blunt.

28. PW-5 HC Anand and PW-6 SI Rahul have corroborated the case of prosecution and deposed of the presence of the accused persons at the spot on the day of incident. It has been admitted in the cross-examination of PW-6 that the incident spot was not covered by any of the CCTV cameras. He has also admitted to have State Vs. Manish Sharma and Ors.

PS Kotwali 14/18 not joined any public persons in the investigaiton since they had left the spot by the time, he returned back to the spot from the police station.

29. In the present case, the statement of the complainant has remained unrebutted in the cross-examination. In fact, the version of the complainant has remained unchanged in the statement recorded on rukka, FIR and his examination-in-chief. The statement on rukka was recorded on 22.04.2019 while his examination-in-chief was recorded on 27.07.2022. Despite a gap of about three years, the testimony of the complainant has remained unblemished and no material contradictions have come to light.

30. The MLCs of Dhruv Rastogi and Milan are reflective of the injuries and have been recorded within one and half hour of the incident.

31. It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the complainant and his brother were being beaten by the public persons while accused persons were inside their shops. In order to support this version, the defence counsel has examined DW-1 Harshit Yadav and DW-2 Ram Kishan Sharma as defence witnesses.

32. However, it is pertinent to mention that DW-1 and DW-2 have stated of the presence of the accused persons in their shop at around 10.20 to 11.00 pm. However, the incident is reported to have occurred at 12.00 am. Hence, the statements of the defence wintnesses have not purforated the case of the prosecution. In fact the presence of the accused persons at their shop on the day of the State Vs. Manish Sharma and Ors.

PS Kotwali 15/18 incident stands duly admitted.

33. It was also argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused that no independent witness have been cited by the IO. The complainant and PW-3 are interested witnesses since they have had previous enmity with the accused persons. He further stated that PW-1 has denied to comment upon the suggestion put to him in the cross- examination regarding registration of an FIR against him, his brother and father, on the complaint of one Lalit Jain.

34. At this stage, court deems it pertinent to cite the case of the Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P. in criminal appeal no. 14671468 of 2005. It was observed by the Apex Court that the case of the prosecution cannot be doubted only on the ground that no independent witness was examined. The relevant para of the judgment is as follows:

"... 21... vi) As far as the non examination of any other independent witness is concerned, there is no doubt that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness. But, the prosecution cannot be doubted on this ground alone. In these days, civilized people are generally insensitive to come forward to give any statement in respect of any criminal offence. Unless it is inevitable, people normally keep away from the court as they feel it distressing and stressful. Though this kind of human behaviour is indeed unfortunate, but it is a normal phenomena. We cannot ignore this handicap of the investigating agency in discharging their duty. We cannot derail the entire case on the mere ground of absence of independent witness as long as the evidence of the eyewitness, though interested, is trustworthy."

35. Further, it is also relevant to mention that the said FIR has not been placed on record by the defence. Nothing has been elicited in State Vs. Manish Sharma and Ors.

PS Kotwali 16/18 the cross-examination establishing the relationship of Lalit Jain with the accused persons or the complainant. Moreover, assuming for the sake of arguments, even if criminal proceedings are pending between the families of complainant and accused persons, it is not conclusive enough to deduce that the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the complainant. The MLC on record as well as the statement of the police officers are corroborative of the statement of the complainant. In fact, the complainant has explicitly mentioned in his examination-in-chief that accused persons beat him up as well as his brother, stopped their way and threatened of shooting them.

36. Further, it was also argued by the ld. Counsel for the accused perons that the complainant had mentioned on the call to the police officer that he was hit by 10-15 public persons. However, in his statement on the rukka, he has explicitly named the three accused persons which is an after thought. As already mentioned, the complainant has testified against the three accused perons in his examination-in-chief. Morevoer, the GD No. 3 is not counter signed by the complainant. Rather, it was only recorded after an oral intimation upon a PCR call. Hence, this does not manifest of a material contradiction.

37. Therefore, in view of the above said discussion, the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons voluntarily obstructed, caused simple hurt and criminally intimidated the complainant and his brother, thereby, establising the offence u/s 323, 341, 506(II) read with 34 IPC.

State Vs. Manish Sharma and Ors.

PS Kotwali 17/18

38. Accordingly, in view of the abovesaid discussion, the accused persons, namely, Manish Sharma, Mayank Sharma and Rajeev Sharma are liable to be convicted u/s 323, 341, 506(II) read with section 34 IPC.

Announced in the open court                                  by SAYESHA
                                                   SAYESHA CHADHA
                                                           Date:
                                                   CHADHA 2025.09.03

today.
                                                             17:23:03
                                                             +0530




                                             (SAYESHA CHADHA)
                                     JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
                                          CLASS-08, Central District,
                                              Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi

[This judgment contains 18 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of undersigned.] State Vs. Manish Sharma and Ors.

PS Kotwali 18/18