Delhi District Court
State vs Mohit Kumar on 29 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09 (SOUTH-WEST) DWARKA
COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Mohit Kumar etc.
FIR No : 12/2017
U/s : 380/448/34 IPC
P.S. : Jafarpur Kalan
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020369472021
2. Date of commission of offence : 12.01.2017
3. Date of institution of the case : 12.08.2021
4. Name of the complainant : Mohd. Idrish
5. Name of accused, parentage & : 1. Mohit Kumar
address S/o Krishan Kumar
R/o H. no.16, Village
Kharkhari Rond,
Najafgarh, New
Delhi.
2. Naresh Yadav
S/o Ram Kumar
R/o H. no.130, VPO
Jafarpur Kalan, New
Delhi.
3. Amit Kumar
S/o N. Kumar
R/o VPO Khatiwas,
Jhajjar, Haryana.
4. Atul Yadav
S/o Ran Singh Yadav
R/o RZ C-Block, 37,
Prem Nagar,
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
5. Rajeev Singh
S/o Virender Singh
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 1 of 27 AHLAWAT 2026.01.29
16:27:01
+0530
R/o VPO Khatiwas,
Jhajjar, Haryana.
(proceedings abated vod
11.12.2023)
6. Offence complained of : 380/448/34 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 29.01.2026
Argued by:- Mr. Parvez Alam, Ld. APP for the State.
Mr. Vipin Sehrawat, Ld. counsel for accused
persons.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 12.01.2017 at 12:30 pm at H. no. RZ-6, Dabar Enclave, Rawta Mor, Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention trespassed into the abovesaid shop of complainant Mohd. Idrish and placed their lock on the said shop and also threatened him for his life. Further, accused persons stole one cooker, three pants, four shifts, two sarees, two bowls and one aluminium and pan belonging to complainant and thereby it is alleged that accused persons committed the offences punishable under Sections 380/448/506/34 IPC, for which FIR no.12/2017 was registered at the police station Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi.
Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
Page 2 of 272026.01.29 FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. 16:27:09 +0530 INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused persons was filed. The Ld. Predecessor of this court took the cognizance against the accused persons and summons were issued to the accused persons. On their appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to them in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, charge under Sections 380/448/34 IPC was framed against them on 05.05.2022. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused persons to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 Mohd. Idrish PW-2 Vijay PW-3 Ajay PW-4 SI Leela Ram PW-5 ASI Kulbir Singh PW-6 Renu PW-7 Sunil DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW4/A Arrest memo qua accused Rajiv Singh Ex.PW4/B Arrest memo qua accused Amit Ex.PW4/C Personal search memo qua accused Rajiv Singh Ex.PW4/D Personal search memo qua accused Amit Ex.PW4/E Disclosure statement of accused Rajiv Singh Ex.PW4/F Disclosure statement of accused Amit Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 3 of 27 AHLAWAT Date:
2026.01.29 16:27:14 +0530 Ex.PW4/G Pointing out memo at the instance of accused Rajiv Singh Ex.PW4/H Pointing out memo at the instance of accused Amit Ex.PW4/I Application for conducting TIP of accused persons Ex.PW4/J Arrest memo qua accused Atul Ex.PW4/K Arrest memo qua accused Mohit Kumar Ex.PW4/L Personal search memo qua accused Atul Ex.PW4/M Personal search memo qua accused Mohit Kumar Ex.PW4/N Disclosure statement of accused Atul Ex.PW4/O Disclosure statement of accused Mohit Kumar Ex.PW4/P Pointing out memo at the instance of accused Atul Ex.PW4/Q Pointing out memo at the instance of accused Mohit Kumar
4. It is pertinent to mention here that accused Rajiv Singh had expired during the pendency of the present case and the proceedings stand abated against him vide order dated 11.12.2023.
5. To prove its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses, the same are as follows:
PW1 Mohd. Idrish deposed that on 12.01.2017 at about 12:30 pm when he was sitting on his vegetable shop which was situated in front side of the property in question, one Kalu along with 4-5 other persons came to his shop and threw his articles outside from the shop. Thereafter, the accused Kalu went inside the house and threw his articles from the house. He did not know anything else. The witness correctly identified accused Naresh @ Kalu present in the court and case property/spot of incident through photographs Ex.P1 (colly) (11 photographs). As PW1 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV Date:
AHLAWAT FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 4 of 27 2026.01.29 16:27:19 +0530 granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross- examination, wherein he denied the suggestion that the accused persons had threatened him of dire consequences. He stated that the accused persons applied their locks on the shops and when he checked his articles, some household articles were found missing. Police had recorded his statement however, he did not read the same as he was illiterate person. When the statement marked as Mark X shown to the witness, he denied the signatures at Point A as his signature. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying the other accused persons who were present in the court today or that he was deposing falsely as he had been won over by the accused persons. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not file any written complaint against the accused persons to the police. Accused Naresh did not have any dispute with him prior to the incident in question.
6. PW2 Vijay deposed that the plot in question was registered in the name of his mother and his mother had not sold the abovesaid plot to anyone as per his knowledge. He stated that four shops were constructed on the said plot and his father was receiving rent of three shops and he was running a shop out of abovesaid shops and the documents of the abovesaid plot were in possession of his father. He stated that IO shown him some documents (in which he sold out the abovesaid plot to Sh. Naresh @ Kalu). He stated that on 12.01.2017 at about 12:30 pm, he was present in his house and at that time accused Naresh @ Kalu and Abhimanyu came to his shop and threw his articles (vegetables and fruits lying in his shop) and put lock on the abovesaid shop without his consent and after sometime some persons also came at his shop and they forcefully entered into his room and thrown his household articles which Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 5 of 27 2026.01.29 16:27:26 +0530 were lying in his room and put a lock on his room and all the persons also thrown the articles of Mohd. Idris which were lying in his room. As PW2 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein he failed to identify accused Mohit Kumar, Amit and Atul Yadav who were present in the court. He denied the suggestion that he had not identifying the said accused persons as he had already settled the present case with them and that he had been won over by the accused persons.
7. PW3 Ajay deposed that his shop was at the Rawta Mor and he was paying monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- to Vijay. He stated that in the month of January 2017, accused Naresh alongwith 4-5 persons came at his abovesaid shop and threw his fruits from the shop and they also threw them out of the shop and thereafter, the owner of the shop called the police. The witness correctly identified accused Naresh present in the court. As PW3 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein he failed to identify accused Mohit Kumar, Amit and Atul Yadav. He denied the suggestion that he was not identifying the said accused persons as he had already settled the present case with them and that he had been won over by the accused persons.
8. PW4 SI Leela Ram deposed that on 05.03.2017, the present case file was marked to him. During investigation, on 23.10.2017, he arrested accused person namely Rajiv Singh and Amit vide arrest memos Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B, conducted their personal search vide personal search memos Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D and also recorded their disclosure statements Ex.PW4/E and Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 6 of 27 AHLAWAT Date:
2026.01.29 16:27:32 +0530 Ex.PW4/F. He also prepared the pointing out memo at the instance of accused Rajiv Singh and Amit Ex.PW4/G and Ex.PW4/H. He also filed an application for TIP of accused persons before the concerned court Ex.PW4/I. During investigation, on 30.04.2018, he arrested accused person namely Atul Yadav and Mohit Kumar vide arrest memos Ex.PW4/J and Ex.PW4/K, conducted their personal search vide personal search memos Ex.PW4/L and Ex.PW4/M and also recorded their disclosure statements Ex.PW4/N and Ex.PW4/O. He also prepared the pointing out memo at the instance of accused Atul Yadav and Mohit Ex.PW4/P and Ex.PW4/Q. During investigation, he also recorded statements of witnesses u/S 161 Cr. P. C. The witness correctly identified accused Atul Yadav, Amit and Mohit present in the court. In the cross-examination, he stated that he was not the eye-witness to the incident. He did not record statement of any public person. He did not seize any CCTV camera from the spot. No recovery was effected from the accused persons and at the instance of accused persons. He did not ask any public person who were present at the spot at the time of preparation of all pointing out memos. He did not serve any notice upon the public persons who were present at the spot for not joining the investigation.
9. PW5 ASI Kulbir Singh deposed that on 12.01.2017, on receipt of DD no.14A, he alongwith Ct. Sudhir went to the spot and when they reached at the spot, they found that the shops were locked. Complainant Mohd. Idris met with them at the spot. Mohd. Idris did not give statement at the spot as he was in shock. Complainant Mohd. Idris came at the PS at around 08:00 pm and he recorded his statement Ex.PW5/A and prepared the tehrir Ex.PW5/B. On the basis of tehrir, the present FIR got registered. He also prepared Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV Date:
AHLAWAT Page 7 of 27 2026.01.29 FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. 16:27:37 +0530 the site plan at the instance of complainant Ex.PW5/C. During investigation, he also arrested the accused Naresh vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/D and conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex.PW5/E and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW5/F. He also prepared the pointing out memo at the instance of accused Naresh Yadav Ex.PW5/G. In the cross-examination, he stated that no eye-witness was found at the spot when he reached at the spot on 12.01.2017. Complainant refused to give his statement at the spot. Vol. He gave his statement at PS on the same day at about 08:00 pm. He did not obtain signatures of any public person on the site plan who were present at the spot at that time. He did not seize any CCTV camera from the spot. He only arrested accused Kalu and later on the investigation was marked to SI Leela Ram. He was having smart mobile phone on the date of incident. He did not prepare any video of the spot which proved the alleged incident. He only clicked photographs from his mobile phone Ex.P1 (colly). He did not give any certificate u/S 65B of IEA regarding the same. He did not call any finger print expert to collect the chance print from the spot. The place where the incident happened was a crowded place. He did not seize any article from the spot. He did not recover anything from the possession of accused persons or at the instance of accused persons. He was not the eye-witness of the incident. No broken article was seized by him from the spot and no broken article was there on the spot. He did not obtain any bill of the articles which claimed by the complainant regarding his ownership from the complainant. No judicial TIP of the case property was done. He did not seize any lock or key from the spot or at the instance of anyone. He did not know why the abovesaid incident happened. He did not know how many shops were locked or how many shops were in opened Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV Date:
FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 8 of 27 AHLAWAT 2026.01.29 16:27:44 +0530 condition. He served notice u/S 91A Cr. P. C. to Vijay for providing CCTV footage but he failed to provide the same to him. He did not know whether abovesaid person namely Vijay filed any complaint against him on the basis of which FIR no.099/18 was registered against him at PS J. P. Kalan. During the investigation, accused Naresh Yadav was produced before the concerned court after his arrest and accused Naresh Yadav produced original property documents before the concerned court and the same were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/H. Thereafter, he got transferred from PS and he handed over the case file to MHC (R). The witness correctly identified accused Naresh Yadav present in the court and photographs of the spot Ex.P1 (colly).
10. PW6 Renu deposed that on 12.01.2017 at about 12:30 pm, she was sitting at the roof of his house and she saw that accused Naresh alongwith 10-12 ladies and 20-25 gents were forcefully entered into her house bearing no.RZ-5 & 6, Rawta Mor, Dabar Enclave, Delhi. Thereafter, she came down and saw all the accused persons throwing house hold articles of her tenant from her house and thereafter, she made 100 number call. She stated that she waited for ten minutes and when PCR not came there, she again made a 100 number call. She stated that one person told her that he was a police official and said person asked her as to why she made 100 number call. She stated that after some time, PCR van came at the spot and she requested the PCR staff to stop that persons. She stated that she recorded the whole incident on her mobile phone and accused Naresh and other accused persons tried to snatch her mobile phone and they threatened to her. She stated that when she tried to stop the abovesaid accused persons then accused persons Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 9 of 27 2026.01.29 16:27:48 +0530 started quarrel and scuffle with her and they also threatened her that they falsely implicated her in a false case. The witness correctly identified accused Naresh present in the court. She stated that she could not identify the other accused persons except Naresh as at the time of incident she was covering her face with her veil (chunni). As PW3 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein she correctly identified accused namely Mohit, Atul and Amit present in court. In the cross-examination, she stated that she handed over her mobile phone to the IO in which the whole incident was recorded and police official returned the same to her after seeing the same. After seeing the judicial file, the witness was unable to trace the said video recording or any seizure memo of the phone. She stated that the spot was crowded but no public person / neighbor were present except accused persons the time of incident. She stated that she was never medically examined with regard to the present case and IO did not record statement of any public person regarding the present case. She stated that her statement was never recorded by the police in the present case and nothing was seized by the police in her presence from the spot on the day of incident. She stated that she was alone at her house at the time of incident and she did not know whether any CCTV camera was installed near the spot and no broken lock was seized by the police. He stated that nobody got injured during the incident and she did not know whether her husband had filed any other case against the accused persons in any other forum regarding the incident. She stated that she did not know if accused Naresh had instituted a civil suit against her husband Vijay Kumar qua the property in question. She stated that she did not know the reasons as to why accused Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 10 of 27 2026.01.29 16:27:53 +0530 Naresh alongwith 10-12 females and 20-25 males entered into their house and she only mentioned the name of accused Naresh in her statement u/S 164 Cr. P. C. as she did not know the names of other persons. She stated that at the time of incident, the property was in her name and she had never handed over CCTV footage of the incident to the police at any point of time. He stated that the spot where the alleged incident happened was usually having lot of public persons and the incident happened on the back side and not on the front where usually lot of public persons available. He stated that all the rooms which were in their possession did not sustain any damages or any encroachment/theft and incident happened in the three rooms which were not in their possession.
11. PW7 Sunil deposed that he used to drive Gramin Sewa bearing no.DL-2W-5284 from Issapur to Najafgarh. He stated that on 12.01.2017 at about 01:30 pm, one person came to him and told him that he had to shift some house hold items from Ratwa Mor to Jafarpur Kalan and thereafter, he went with the said person at one gali in Rawta Mor behind fruit shop. He stated that the said person loaded the house hold articles with the help of one lady and after some time, the said lady and said person again took back the house hold articles from the said Gramin Sewa. In the cross-examination, he stated that police never met him regarding the present case at any point of time. there was no scuffle at the spot when he was present there.
12. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, remaining in the prosecution list were dropped and the formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with. No other PW was left to be examined; hence, PE was closed.
Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2026.01.29 FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 11 of 27 16:27:58 +0530 STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
13. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused persons to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, the statement of the accused persons was recorded on 29.08.2024 without oath under section 281 r/w 313 Cr.PC, wherein they have stated that they are innocent and falsely implicated in the present case.
Accused Mohit and Atul further stated that they went to their native place in Jafarpur Kalan and they stopped to see what was happened at the shop of complainant. Whereafter police arrived at the spot and they were falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Naresh stated that on the date of incident, he went to get his plot vacated from the possession of complainant Mohd. Idrish who was wrongly possessing the same. He only went there and orally asked him to vacate the same but he did not break any lock nor affixed his own lock there. Accused Amit Kumar stated that he alongwith Rajiv (since deceased) went to Jafarpur Kalan and he continued to remain in his Alto car and nothing happened in his presence. All the accused persons further stated that they did not want to lead defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
14. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
15. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 12 of 27 2026.01.29 16:28:04 +0530 commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be punished for the said offences.
16. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it . As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be acquitted for the said offence.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE.
17. The allegations levelled against the accused persons are segregated into two parts, firstly pertaining to offences related to Sections 448/506/34 IPC and second pertaining to offence related to Section 380/34 IPC.
18. Let us deal with the first set of allegations against the accused persons qua the offence of 448/506/34 IPC. Before delving into merits let us briefly delineate the ingredients of offence.
Section 441 IPC defines criminal trespass as under:
Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains therewith intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass".
Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 13 of 27 2026.01.29 16:28:09 +0530
19. Thus, it is necessary for an offence punishable u/s 448 IPC that essential ingredients of criminal trespass and house trespass must be fulfilled. For commission of criminal trespass three essential ingredients have to be fulfilled which are as follows:
(1) Entry into or upon property in possession of another.
(2) If such entry is lawful then unlawfully remaining upon such property.
(3) Such entry or unlawful remaining must be with intent:
(i) to commit of offence or
(ii) to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession of the property.
20. Thus, it is important that the property trespassed must be in actual possession of some person other than the alleged trespasser. It is necessary for the prosecution to prove the exclusive possession of the complainant upon the property trespassed. It is also settled law that the question of title is not to be raised on a plea of possession as the offence is against possession and not against ownership of property.
21. Furthermore, it is to be noted that a simple and even unintentional entry upon another's land constitutes injuria, and is actionable. But a civil suit lies for this, not a criminal prosecution. But if entry is affected with the mens rea mentioned in Sec. 441, then alone a criminal prosecution will lie. In criminal trespass, intention to commit an offence is an essential ingredient. The causing of an offence, intimidation, etc. must be the main aim of the entry. Therefore, mere occupation, even if it is illegal, without such intent, cannot amount to criminal trespass as held in Kanwal Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 14 of 27 2026.01.29 16:28:15 +0530 Sood v Nawal Kishore, 1983 CrLJ 173 (SC). It is important to note that the use of criminal force is not a necessary ingredient. Further, knowledge of likelihood, in place of intention, will not make an offence under Sec. 441.
22. The first ingredient which need to be proved to prove the offence u/S 448 IPC is that accused committed criminal trespass i.e. entering into or upon the property in possession of another with intention to commit the offence or to intimidate or insult or annoy any person. In the instant case, the prosecution is relying upon the testimony of PW1 Mohd. Idrish, PW2 Vijay, PW3 Ajay and PW6 Renu to prove the factum that complainant was in possession of the shop which was allegedly trespassed by the accused person.
As per PW1 Mohd. Idrish who stated in his testimony that on 12.01.2017 at about 12:30 pm when he was sitting on his vegetable shop which was situated in front side of the property in question, one Kalu along with 4-5 other persons came to his shop and threw his articles outside his shop. Thereafter, accused Kalu went inside the house and threw his articles from the said house. PW1 thereafter stated that he did not knew any other thing apart from the said facts and he only identified accused Naresh @ Kalu to be the one of the person who had committed the said act. PW1 further identified the property i.e. spot of incident through photographs Ex.P1 (colly).
23. As PW1 failed to disclose the entire facts and failed to support the entire version of prosecution, Ld. APP was granted permission to cross-examine PW1. In the said cross-examination PW1 further admitted that accused persons had applied their locks on the shops and when he checked his articles, some of his household articles Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 15 of 27 2026.01.29 16:28:20 +0530 were found missing. PW1 categorically denied signing the complaint Ex.PW5/A and also denied his signatures on the letter addressed to the police on 13.01.2017 regarding his missing articles. PW1 further in his cross-examination by Ld. APP stated that he used to reside in the property in question since last 10-12 years and he used to pay the rent of the premises to its owner namely Balbir Singh. When PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons, he stated that he had not filed any written complaint against the accused persons to the police. PW1 further stated that no rent agreement was executed qua the property in question nor any rent receipt was executed by any person namely Vijay.
24. Careful evaluation of testimony of PW1 reveals that he only stated that he was having his vegetable shop in front of the property in question. PW1 did not provide the entire details of the said property in question but only stated that it was owned by one Balbir Singh. Interestingly, the said Balbir Sikngh was never joined in the investigation nor he was cited as a witness in the present case. As PW1 has categorically denied moving any complaint against accused persons as he denied signing any complaint statement, it is relevant to see as to how the criminal law was set into motion in the present case.
25. As per PW5 ASI Kulbir Singh, who stated in his testimony that on receipt of DD no.14A dated 12.01.2017 he alongwith Ct. Sudhir went to the spot where they found shops being locked. PW5 further stated that complainant Mohd. Idrish was found at the spot but he did not give his statement at the spot and he came to the police station at about 08:00 pm where his statement Ex.PW5/A was recorded whereafter the present FIR was registered. Perusal of the Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 16 of 27 2026.01.29 16:28:25 +0530 case file reveals that there is no DD entry 14A which is filed alongwith the charge-sheet. There is only one GD entry on record with time and GD number as null which mentions receiving of a PCR call regarding one quarrel at Dabar Enclave. The said GD entry is neither tendered nor it mentions the GD number or the fact whether it relates to the present case. As PW5 had stated that he went to the spot after receiving DD no.14A, however, no reason is forthcoming as to why the said DD entry was not filed alongwith the record.
26. Furthermore, during the course of investigation to ascertain the fact of possession/ ownership of the spot in question, PW5 arrested accused Naresh who produced original documents before the Court which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/H. Perusal of the said seizure memo reveals that the following set of documents as produced by accused Naresh Kumar were seized which are as follows:
(i) Two copies of Genesent Power of attorny executed betwent Basanti Devi at Bhagwan Singh R/o VPO-J. P. Kalan, New Delhi and Meera Devi W/o Balbir Singh R/o Dariyapur Khurd, New Delhi on dt. 20.01.95 of property Khasra no.194/1 mesuring 225 sq. Yards Polt no.6 (2PP).
(ii) One copy of Affidavit in respect of abovesaid property and persons (1P).
(iii) One copy of Receipt -do- (1PP).
(iv) Two copy of Agreement to sell (2PP).
(v) Four paper original of GPA executed between Meera Devi and Vijay Kumar Yadav both R/o VPO Dariyapul Khurd, New Delhi-73 in respect of property in Plot no.6 khasra no.194/1, J.P. Kalan, New Delhi (4PP).
(vi) Four papers original of GAP executed between Meera devi and Vijay Kumar Yadav in respect of Plot no.6 khasra no.194/1, J.P. Kalan, New Delhi, measuring 225 sq. yards (4PP).
Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 17 of 27 2026.01.29 16:28:29 +0530
(vii) Two papers original of Affidavit executed by Meear Devi in respect of Plot no.6 khasra no.194/1, J.P. Kalan, New Delhi (2PP).
(viii) One copy original of Receipt made by Meera Devi in respect of property Plot no.6 khasra no.194/1, J.P. Kalan, New Delhi (1PP).
(ix) Two original copy of Will made be Meera Devi in respect of property Plot no.6 khasra no.194/1, J. P. Kalan, New Delhi mesuring 225 sq. Yards (2PP).
(x) Four original copy of GPA executed b/w Vijay Kumar Yadav and Naresh Kumar Yadav in respect of Property Plot no.6, khasra no.194/1, J. P. Kalan, New Delhi measuring 225 sq. yards (4PP)
(xi) Four original copy of Agreement to sell made between Vijay Kumar Yadav in favour of Naresh Kumar Yadav in respect of property Plot no.6 khasra no.194/1, J. P. Kalan, New Delhi mesuring 225 sq. Yards (4PP)
(xii) Two original copies of Affidanit made by Vijay Kumar Yader in favour of Naresh Kumar Yadav in respect of property Plot no.6 khasra no.194/1, J.
P. Kalan, New Delhi mesuring 225 sq. Yards - (2 pp)
(xiii) One original copy of receipt made by Vijay Kumar Yadav in respect of property Plot no.6 khasra no.194/1, J. P. Kalan, New Delhi mesuring 225 sq. Yards (1PP)
(xiv) One original copy of possession letter executed by Vijay Yadav in favour of Naresh Kumar Yadav in respect of property Plot no.6 khasra no.194/1, J. P. Kalan, New Delhi mesuring 225 sq. Yards (1PP).
(xv) One original copy of Will made by Vijay Kumar Yadav in favour of Naresh Kumar Yadav in respect of property Plot no.6 khasra no.194/1, J. P. Kalan, New Delhi mesuring 225 sq. Yards (1PP).
27. Interestingly, the said documents as produced from accused Naresh Yadav are not on record. As per IO PW5 he has seized the same, however, the said property documents were not filed alongwith the charge-sheet. Perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that it was mentioned that accused Naresh Kumar @ Kalu had produced property document of Plot bearing no.6, area 225 sq. yards Khasra no.194/1, Dabar Enclave, SR Block-A, J. P. Kalan, Delhi which was seized by police during the course of investigation and it is mentioned that for verification they were seized.
Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 18 of 27 2026.01.29 16:28:35 +0530
28. The other IO i.e. PW4 SI Leela Ram is completely silent regarding verification of the said property documents as seized from accused Naresh. He has not stated anything in his testimony as to what was done regarding the investigation once the case file was marked to him for investigation after the transfer of first IO ASI Kulbir Singh. There is absolutely nothing on record as brought in prosecution evidence regarding the ownership details or possession regarding the property in question as mentioned by the complainant.
29. Also, during the stage of final arguments, a specific question was raised regarding the seizure of the ownership documents of the property in question from accused Naresh, however, when the said seized documents were not found on record, notices were issued to both the IOs who had investigated the matter. IO SI Kuldeep Singh who had submitted the chargesheet stated that specimen/handwriting of Vijay Kumar could not be taken at the relevant time as Vijay Kumar was paralyzed at the said time. However, neither such record was filed with the chargesheet nor any such material has come on record to show that Vijay Kumar was not available/fit at the relevant time. Also, notice was issued to the SHO to ascertain whether any pending investigation was underway. However, the reply was received from the SHO concerned that no investigation was pending.
30. The prosecution further examined PW2 Vijay for establishing/ corroborating the factum of possession of the shop of complainant. PW2 stated that the plot in question was registered in the name of his mother and that as per his knowledge, his mother had not sold it to anybody else. PW2 further stated that four shops were constructed on the said plot and his father was receiving rent of Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 19 of 27 2026.01.29 16:28:40 +0530 three shops and one shop was run by him only. PW2 further stated that the documents of the abovesaid plot were in possession of his father and that during investigation IO had shown certain documents as per which he had sold the abovesaid plot to Sh. Naresh @ Kalu. PW2 denied executing such documents in favour of Naresh. PW2 further stated that on the date of incident i.e. 12.01.2017 he was present at his house when accused Naresh and one Abhimanyu came to his shop threw vegetables and fruits lying in his shop and they put lock on his shop without his consent.
Thereafter they forcefully entered into his room and threw his household articles which were lying in the said room. PW2 only identified accused Naresh and stated that other accused persons were present there but he could not identify them. Upon being cross-examined by Ld. APP, PW2 failed to identify accused Mohit, Amit and Atul.
31. Interestingly, as stated by PW2 that the property in question is in the name of his mother, the documents of which were in possession of his father namely Balbir Singh, neither the said property document were seized and examined by the IO during the course of investigation nor said Balbir Singh or mother of Vijay Kumar was examined and joined in the investigation. Although PW2 has described the incident regarding forcefully throwing of articles from his shop and room, however, the factum of ownership and possession of the said shop has not been proved by PW2 also.
32. Prosecution further examined PW6 Renu wife of Vijay Kumar (PW2) who also repeated the factum of Naresh entering in her house forcefully alongwith other persons whereafter they started throwing articles of her from her house. However, PW6 did not Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 20 of 27 2026.01.29 16:28:45 +0530 state anything regarding the aspect of possession and ownership of the said shop and house. PW6 only identified accused Naresh and stated that she could not identify the other person as other persons were covering their faces. Only when Ld. APP cross-examined PW6 whereafter attention of PW6 was drawn towards accused Mohit, Atul and Amit and PW6 correctly identified them. Interestingly, in her cross-examination she stated that she did not know who were the owner of the house in which the incident happened nor she had handed over any document regarding ownership of the house to the IO at any point of time. PW6 further stated in the cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused persons that she was not aware about any civil suit filed by accused Naresh against her husband Vijay Kumar qua the property in question.
33. Upon careful perusal of the prosecution witnesses and the material procured by the IO during investigation, it is evident that neither the original documents of the property, that is the shop as stated to be of wife of one Mr. Balbir Singh father of PW2, on whose behalf the rent was collected by PW2 Vijay, was procured nor any other document to show that either wife of Balbir Singh was the owner in possession of the said shop nor any other documents to show that complainant PW1 was entitled to keep his vegetable shop in front of the property in question. Interestingly, only the documents seized was the one which were of the accused persons namely Naresh only, but even the same was never forensically examined.
34. Furthermore, in the absence of any such documents showing that complainant/PW1 was entitled to be in exclusive possession of the spot which is in front of the subject property, which in itself Digitally shows that the original complainant PW1 was not legally entitled signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2026.01.29 FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 21 of 27 16:28:49 +0530 to remain there to be in exclusive possession in exclusion of other persons. Further, the fact that PW1 complainant himself has denied making any complaint to the police, which strikes at the root of the prosecution case and cumulatively, there is nothing in the prosecution case to show that any sort of criminal trespass was committed let alone by the accused persons. None of the ingredients of section 448 IPC are being made out. Further, all of the prosecution witness has also not identified all the accused persons to be present at the spot. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the said offence. In the absence of cogent material to show unlawful entry with the requisite intention to commit an offence, intimidate, insult or annoy the complainant, the very foundation of the charge of criminal trespass collapses. Since criminal jurisprudence mandates proof beyond reasonable doubt, any failure on the part of the prosecution to establish these ingredients necessarily entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt, rendering conviction impermissible., all the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted of section 448 IPC.
35. The other allegations against the accused persons revolves around commission of offences u/s 506 IPC. Following are the essentials of the offence of Criminal Intimidation as defined under section 503 IPC:-
i. It must be a positive act of causing threat to a person; ii. It must be directed towards his person, property or reputation; iii. It must be directed towards the person or reputation or property of anyone in whom the victim is interested;
iv. It must be done with the intention of causing alarm to such a person;
or v. It must cause him to do something which he is not legally bound to do or refrain him from doing something which he is legally bound to do.
Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 22 of 27 2026.01.29 16:28:55 +0530
36. Let this court examine the fact whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused u/s 506 IPC or not. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, mere words do not constitute an offence u/s 506 IPC against accused and there should be evidence to show that acts, gesture or words of the accused have caused alarm to the complainant to prove an offence u/s 506 IPC against her. Reliance in this regard, can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court on section 506 IPC in Manik Taneja & Anr. vs State of Karnataka & Anr, (2015) 7 SCC 423. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: -
"It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of 'Criminal intimidation'. The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant."
37. In the present case, as discussed above no evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution to prove the fact that the threat extended to the complainant had caused any alarm to him or due to the threat, he had omitted from any of his work. Infact, PW1 complainant himself denied making any complaint to the police as he also denied his signature on the complaint Mark X. In the opinion of this court, the prosecution has failed to prove its case u/s 506 IPC as there is nothing on record to suggest that threat extended to the complainant has caused any alarm to him and due to the alleged threat, he was alarmed to such an extent that he was not able to carry out his daily life. Thus, in the absence of any evidence to the effect that no alarm has been caused to the complainant due to the threat extended by the accused, no offence Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 23 of 27 2026.01.29 16:29:01 +0530 u/s 506 IPC is made out against all the accused persons, and are therefore, acquitted for the offence u/s 506 IPC.
38. The second allegation against the accused persons pertains to offence relating to offence under section 380/34 IPC.The provision of section 380 IPC is as under:
Section 380 IPC - Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
39. It is the prosecution case that accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, after trespassing the subject property, stole one cooker, three pans, four shirts, two sarees, two katoris, and one aluminium pan belonging to complainant. Prosecution examined PW1 complainant Md. Idrish who stated in his testimony that he had never moved any complaint Mark X, as the same did not bear his signature. However, when he failed to support the prosecution case, Ld. APP was granted permission to cross-examine PW1 and in the said cross-examination, PW1 stated that when he checked his articles, some of his household articles were found missing. Also, IO admitted in his cross examination that he had not seized any article from the spot, nor any such articles were recovered from the possession of the accused persons. IO further admitted that he had also not obtained any bill of those articles from the complainant nor any judicial TIP of the case property was conducted during the course of investigation.
40. It is evident that complainant never made any such complaint to the police as he has denied his signature on the complaint Mark X nor any specific identification mark on the stolen articles has been Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 24 of 27 2026.01.29 16:29:06 +0530 highlighted to show that the same specifically belonged to the complainant. The factum of complainant possessing the said shop in front of the subject property is also not proved as discussed in the preceding paragraphs and in the absence of any specific material to show the stolen articles were exclusively owned by the complainant, the basic ingredients of section 380 IPC are not made out. Merely alleging that certain articles have gone missing from the subject property is not enough for the purpose of prosecuting the accused person.
41. As per the offence of theft, the term possession must be distinguished from custody. A man is said to be in possession of a thing when he can deal with it as the owner to the exclusion of others. The property is in his custody when he cannot deal with it, as the owner, but merely keeps it for the sake of another, as in the case of a servant holding property for his master. To constitute theft, the property must be in possession of someone and then removed from his possession.
42. It is settled law that in case of offence of theft, person must have removed movable property out of the possession of another dishonestly and without that person's consent. Property must be in the possession of the prosecutor. For the purpose of commission of offence of theft, it is sufficient if property is removed against his wishes from the custody of a person who has an apparent title, or even colour of right to such property. A movable thing is said to be in the possession of a person when he is so situated with respect to it, that it has the power to deal with it as owner to the exclusion of all other persons and when the circumstances are such that he may be presumed to intend to do so in case of need.
Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 25 of 27 2026.01.29 16:29:10 +0530
43. Accordingly, upon the evaluation of the prosecution evidence and the case record, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 380 IPC have not been established.
CONCLUSION
44. Upon a holistic evaluation of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses and the material collected during the course of investigation, it is evident that none of the charges alleged against the accused persons are made out. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences by leading reliable, cogent, and convincing evidence. The case of the prosecution suffers from material inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and inherent infirmities, which strike at the very root of its version. In such circumstances, the prosecution has fallen far short of the standard of proof required in criminal law, and consequently, all the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt.
45. The basic ingredients of Section 380/448/506/34 IPC have not been proved and the inescapable conclusion is that the accused 1. Mohit Kumar S/o Krishan Kumar, 2. Naresh Yadav S/o Ram Kumar, 3. Amit Kumar S/o N. Kumar and 4. Atul Yadav S/o Ran Singh Yadav are entitled to benefit of doubt and they are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under section 380/448/506/34 IPC. Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT Announced in the open court AHLAWAT Date:
2026.01.29 on 29.01.2026 in the presence 16:29:17 +0530 of the accused.
(Abhinav Ahlawat)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-09,
Dwarka, Delhi/29.01.2026
FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 26 of 27
Note:- This judgment contains 27 pages and each page has been Digitally signed
signed by me. ABHINAV
by ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2026.01.29
16:29:22
+0530
(Abhinav Ahlawat)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-09,
Dwarka, Delhi/29.01.2026
FIR No. 12/2017, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Mohit Kumar etc. Page 27 of 27