Delhi District Court
State vs Firoz Alam on 5 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. KARANBIR SINGH, JMFC-02,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE VS. FIROZ ALAM and Ors.
FIR NO. 78/2020
PS MAURICE NAGAR
U/S 188 IPC
Date of institution of the case : 14.12.2021.
Date of judgment reserved : 04.05.2026.
Date of commission of offence : 01.10.2020
Name of the complainant : SI Arvind Kumar
Name of accused and address : 1. Firoz Alam S/o Sh. Jahangir Alam, R/o
G-159, DG-159, Dakshinpuri, Dr.
Ambedkar Nagar, South, Delhi
2. Diya Davis S/o Davis T P R/o HN
9/19, Block 9, Vijay Nagar, Double
Story, Model Town, North West, Delhi
3. Varkey Parakkal S/o Sh. Biju
Varghese, R/o Parakkal House,
Njarakkal, Vypin, Kochi, Narkal,
Ernakulam, Kerala India.
4. Mohd. Bilal S/o Md. Mashahud H.NO.
529K/ 1332, KHURRAM NAGAR
INDIRA NAGAR LUCKNOW, UP.
Offence complained of : 188 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Judgment : 05.05.2026.
Final order : ACQUITTED.
JUDGMENT
STATE Vs. FIROZ ALAM AND Ors. . FIR No. 78/2020 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 1 / 11 KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2026.05.05 16:31:36 +0530
1. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 01.10.2020 at about 05:35 PM, at back side of Gate of Arts Faculty, University of Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Maurice Nagar, all accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, assembled along with other persons and were protesting during the period when prohibitory orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C. were in force due to COVID-19 pandemic. They were duly informed by police officials regarding the restrictions imposed by the competent authority and were directed not to assemble and to maintain social distancing norms. That despite such directions, they intentionally disobeyed the lawful order promulgated by ACP, Civil Lines vide order no. 8154- 8254/R/ACP/Civil Lines, Delhi Dated 01.10.2020 and continued their protest in violation of the said order. And thereby, all accused persons committed an offence punishable under Section 188 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the commission of offence punishable under Section 188 IPC was prepared against the accused persons and was filed in the Court.
3. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., arguments on the point of notice were heard and vide order dated 02.08.2022, notice was framed for commission of offence punishable under Section 188 IPC against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses.
5. PW1 On 07.03.2023 PW-1 ASI Sapan Kumar was examined. In his examination he deposed that on 01.10.2020, he was posted as HC at PS Maurice Nagar. He further deposed that on that day he along with ASI Raj Kumar, Ct. Mukul, W/Ct. Rajni, the then SHO and other police officials were on arrangement duty at Art STATE Vs. FIROZ ALAM AND Ors. . FIR No. 78/2020 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 2 / 11 KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2026.05.05 16:31:40 +0530 Faculty Backside Gate, University of Delhi. He further deposed that at about 05:30 pm around 10-15 students started protesting there. They were raising slogan "Mahilayein Apna Adhikar Maangti, Suraksha Ka Adhikar Mangti". He further deposed that the then SHO informed them that they are protesting without permission and in violation of Section 144 Cr.PC. As they were not maintaining social distancing and they all were without mask. He further deposed that they alongwith other police officials detained students namely Firoz Alam, Varky, Bilal, Sangeeta, Diya and Rekha and took them to Operation Cell. He deposed that after formal interrogation they were all released by them. He further deposed that SI Arvind, IO of the present case recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC.
6. On 13.05.2025, PW-2 W/Ct. Rajni was examined. In her examination she deposed that on 01.10.2020, she was posted as W/Ct. at PS Maurice Nagar. On that day, She further deposed that she along with SHO, SI Arvind, ASI Raj Kumar, Ct. Mukul and other staff, were on arrangement duty at backside gate, Arts faculty, DU. She further deposed that at about 5:30PM around 10-15 boys and girls holding the posters were protesting and raising slogans. She further deposed that the SHO was telling the protesters that section 144 Cr.P.C. had been invoked because of the Covid-19 pandemic and they were not allowed to hold any protests. She deposed that they continued the protests without maintaining the proper social distance and wearing any masks even after knowing the above said order. Accused Sangeeta, Dia, Rekha and other accused persons whose names she do not remember were leading the aforesaid protest. She further deposed that the accused protesters were detained and taken to the operation cell and were released after sometime after making inquiries.
7. On 23.09.2025, PW-3 Retd. SI Raj Kumar was examined. He deposed that on 01.10.2020, he alongwith SI Arvind Kumar, the SHO concerned Insp. Rajiv Shah, SI Rajbir, ASI Bijender, HC Sapan, Ct. Mukul, W/Ct. Rajni and other staff members were in arrangement duty on the backside gate of Art Faculty, University of Delhi. He STATE Vs. FIROZ ALAM AND Ors. . FIR No. 78/2020 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 3 / 11 KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2026.05.05 16:31:46 +0530 further deposed that at about 05:35 pm, there were 10-15 boys and girls, who were having protest banners in their hands and they started protesting regarding the Women Rights and Women Safety. He further deposed that the SHO concerned requested them that they do not have the proper permission and moreover Section 144 Cr.P.C is underway due to Covid-19 Pandemic and informed them that they cannot protest in such a way without following any social distancing and also without having any proper masks. He further deposed that the said protesters were laid by Firoz Alam, Bilal, Diya, Rekha, Sangeeta and one Varkey Parkar. He further deposed that the protest was recorded and thereafter the protesters were were taken to operation cell. He further deposed that inquiry was made to them and thereafter, they were released. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement.
8. On 25.04.2026, PW-4 SI Arvind was examined. He deposed that on 01.10.2020, he alongwith ASI Raj Kumar, the SHO concerned Insp. Rajiv Shah, SI Rajbir, ASI Vijender, HC Sapan, Ct. Mukul, W/Ct. Rajni, Constable Manoj, Constable Mohit, CT. Pooran Mal Ct. Pratap, W/ASI Pushpa, W/Ct. Aarti and W/HC Yogesh and other staff members were in arrangement duty on the backside gate of Art Faculty, University of Delhi. He further deposed that at about 05:35 pm, there were 10-15 boys and girls, who were having protest banners in their hands and they started protesting regarding the Women Rights and Women Safety and raising slogan "Mahiliaye apna adhikar mangti, suraksha ka adhikar mangti". He further deposed that he and the SHO concerned requested them that they do not have the proper permission and moreover Section 144 Cr.P.C is underway due to Covid-19 Pandemic and informed them that they cannot protest in such a way without following any social distancing and also without having any proper masks. He further deposed that the said protesters were laid by Firoz Alam, Bilal, Diya, Rekha, Sangeeta and one Varkey Parakkal. He further deposed that the protester continue their protest even after warning without social distancing and proper mask and said to they know STATE Vs. FIROZ ALAM AND Ors. . FIR No. 78/2020 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 4 / 11 KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2026.05.05 16:31:52 +0530 everything and they will continue the protest. He further deposed that the videography of the entire incident was done by bringing a camera from PS. He further deposed that all protester were detained and taken to the operation cell and thereafter the accused persons were released. He further deposed that he prepared the tehrir after the directions of the SHO which is Ex. PW4/A and got the FIR registered by handing over the tehrir to the IO. He further deposed that he recorded the statements of witnesses U/s 161 Cr. PC. He further deposed that he reached at the spot and prepared the site plan which is Ex. PW4/B. He further deposed that accused persons namely Firoz Alam, Varkey Parkkal, Md. Bilal and Diya Davis were called to the PS and he served the notice to them U/s 41(A) Cr. PC. which are Ex. PW4/C, Ex. PW4/D, Ex. PW4/E and Ex. PW4/F. He further deposed that he went in search of accused Sangita at 5/7, Vijay Nagar, Delhi where owner of the house Rashmi Bhatia met him and gave statement that Sangita did not reside there. He further deposed that he went in search of accused Rekha at H. No. 102, Gadhriya area, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi where owner of the house Vivek Hans met him and gave statement that Rekha did not reside there. He further deposed that he obtained the permission U/s 195 Cr. PC to prosecute the accused persons which is already Ex. A4. Accused Sangita and Rekha were not found during investigation. He further deposed that he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the court.
9. On 25.04.2026, PW-5 HC Mukul was examined and he deposed that on 01.10.2020, he alongwith ASI Raj Kumar, the SHO concerned Insp. Rajiv Shah, SI Rajbir, ASI Vijender, HC Sapan, SI Arvind, W/Ct. Rajni, Constable Manoj, Constable Mohit, CT. Pooran Mal Ct. Pratap, W/ASI Pushpa, W/Ct. Aarti and W/HC Yogesh and other staff members were in arrangement duty on the backside gate of Art Faculty, University of Delhi. He further deposed that at about 05:35 pm, there were 10-15 boys and girls, who were having protest banners in their hands and they started protesting regarding the Women Rights and Women Safety and raising slogan STATE Vs. FIROZ ALAM AND Ors. . FIR No. 78/2020 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 5 / 11 KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2026.05.05 16:31:55 +0530 "Mahiliaye apna adhikar mangti, suraksha ka adhikar mangti". He further deposed that the IO and the SHO concerned requested them that they do not have the proper permission and moreover Section 144 Cr.P.C is underway due to Covid-19 Pandemic and informed them that they cannot protest in such a way without following any social distancing and also without having any proper masks. He further deposed that the said protesters were laid by Firoz Alam, Bilal, Diya, Rekha, Sangeeta and one Varkey Parakkal. He further deposed that the protester continue their protest even after warning without social distancing and proper mask and said to them that they know everything and they will continue the protest. He further deposed that the videography of the entire incident was done by bringing a camera from PS. He further deposed that all protester were detained and taken to the operation cell and thereafter the accused persons were released. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr. PC and discharged him.
10. During trial, statements of accused persons under section 294 CrPC were also recorded.
11. PW HC Amit Kumar and SO/ACP/CIVIL LINES were dropepd form list of witnesses.
12. PE was Closed
13. Thereafter, the statement of accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused persons stated that they are innocent and falsely been implicated in this case by the police officials. However, they opted not to lead any defence evidence.
14. I have heard the arguments of Sh. Deepak, Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel Sh. Aftab Alam Ld. Counsel on behalf of accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
KARANBIR SINGH STATE Vs. FIROZ ALAM AND Ors. . FIR No. 78/2020 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 6 / 11 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2026.05.05 16:31:59 +0530
15. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence & that in order to prove its case on judicial file, the prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs whereby it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further it is settled that the primary burden of proof for proving the offences in a criminal trial rests on the shoulders of the prosecution, which burden never shifts on to the accused.
16. At the outset, it is noted that Complainant and IO are same person in the present matter which is not permissible and this alone is sufficient to discard the case of prosecution.
17. I am fortified in this view by placing reliance on decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Punjab & Haryana High Court in Gannu and Ors. V. State of Punjab, 2017(3)RCR(Cr.) 566, where it was held:
14. Another aspect of the matter is that in sheer violation of the principles of fair and impartial investigation, the complainant and the investigating officer is the same person, which makes the prosecution case doubtful. In Laltu Prasad v. State of West Bengal, 2017(2) R.C.R. (Cr.) 237 (Calcutta) (DB), it was held that the complainant himself acting as the investigating officer violating the principles of fair and impartial investigation is a practice, to say the least, should not be resorted to and it is a disturbing feature. To the same effect, is a Division Bench judgment of Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court reported as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Atul Sharma and others, 2015 (6) R.C.R. (Criminal) 949, wherein, it has been held that where the complainant himself conducts investigation, it causes miscarriage of justice to accused qua fair investigation.
18. Same was reiterated in the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohan Lal vs The STATE Vs. FIROZ ALAM AND Ors. . FIR No. 78/2020 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 7 / 11 KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2026.05.05 16:32:02 +0530 State Of Punjab AIR 2018 SC 3853, where it was held:
"30. In view of the conflicting opinions expressed by different two-Judge Benches of this Court, the importance of a fair investigation from the point of view of an accused as a guaranteed constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is considered necessary that the law in this regard be laid down with certainty. To leave the matter for being determined on the individual facts of a case, may not only lead to a possible abuse of powers, but more importantly will leave the police, the accused, the lawyer and the courts in a state of uncertainty and confusion which has to be avoided. It is therefore held that a fair investigation, which is but the very foundation of fair trial, necessarily postulates that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. Justice must not only be done, but must appear to be done also. Any possibility of bias or a predetermined conclusion has to be excluded. This requirement is all the more imperative in laws carrying a reverse burden of proof.
31. Resultantly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The prosecution is held to be vitiated because of the infraction of the constitutional guarantee of a fair investigation. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in any other case".
19. Be that as it may, the Prosecution has failed to prove that any serious effort was made by recovery witnesses who were police officials to join public witnesses in the proceedings. From a perusal of the record, no serious effort for joining public witnesses appears to have been made. Therefore, non- joining of independent witness casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation. In a case law reported as "Anoop V/s State", 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:-
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly STATE Vs. FIROZ ALAM AND Ors. . FIR No. 78/2020 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 8 / 11 KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2026.05.05 16:32:06 +0530 when we find that shops were open and one or two shop-keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
20. No photographs and video of the protest has been placed on record by IO and it is a major lapse in case of prosecution.
21. PW ASI Sapan did not identify the accused persons in cross-examination. Further, there are no departure or arrival entries.
22. Police officials are under a statutory duty to mark their departure and arrival in the register kept in the police station for the purpose as per the Punjab Police Rules. It is relevant here to reproduce Chapter 22 Rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which reads as under:
"22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II- The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered:
(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal.
Note: The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained."
23. Since public persons were not joined in the investigation, the departure entry of KARANBIR SINGH STATE Vs. FIROZ ALAM AND Ors. . FIR No. 78/2020 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 9 / 11 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date:
2026.05.05 16:32:09 +0530 the aforesaid police officials becomes a vital piece of evidence. No such daily diary entry regarding departure of police witnesses is, however, present on record.
24. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
25. Further, there is one more aspect. In Ram Ajodhya Baitha and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. passed in Crl. Misc. No. 18626/1995, it was held as follows:
"The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order taking cognizance on the sole ground that albeit the Sub-divisional Magistrate has filed a petition of complaint but nowhere he has stated that such disobedience has caused or tends to cause any obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed nor it is stated that such disobedience caused or tends to cause damage to human life. In absence of such statement in the complaint petition which are essential ingredients for proceeding in terms of Section 188 of the Indian Penal code. In the light of the submission of the learned counsel, I have perused the complaint petition wherefrom it appears that no such averment has been made and accordingly I am of the view that the submission of the learned counsel is well founded. I am supported by unreported Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Gyasuddin Mian and others vs. State of Bihar and ors. vide Cr.W.J.C. No.738 of 1994 disposed of on 24.10.94. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 8.11.95 of the alleged officer against the petitioners is quashed. Consequently, this application is allowed."
KARANBIR SINGH STATE Vs. FIROZ ALAM AND Ors. . FIR No. 78/2020 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 10 / 11 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2026.05.05 16:32:12 +0530
26. The aforesaid judgment was followed in Md. Habib Mian vs The State Of Jharkhand, judgment dt. 13.12.2019 in which the Hon'ble Ld. High Court of Jharkhand upheld the order of Revisional Court. The Revisional Court had quashed the order taking cognizance passed by the Ld. CJM since the complaint given u/s 195 Cr.P.C. did not reiterate the consequence of Section 188 IPC. In the present matter as well the complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. fails to reiterate the consequences of Section 188 of IPC. The complaint merely states that accused persons have violated Section 188 and the notification of the ACP dt. 01.10.20220. However, the complaint u/s 195 does not state that as a result of the protest carried out by the students, there was an obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury and that the disobedience of the notification has resulted in danger to human life health or safety. Accordingly, the court holds that the complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. is not a valid complaint and as a result of the same, the court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Resultantly, all the accused persons are acquitted for offence u/s 188 IPC.
This judgment consists of 11 pages and each and every page of this judgment is signed by me. Digitally signed by KARANBIR KARANBIR SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.05.05 16:32:16 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (KARANBIR SINGH) ON 5th MAY 2026 JMFC-02, Central District Tis Hazari Courts/05.05.2026.
STATE Vs. FIROZ ALAM AND Ors. . FIR No. 78/2020 PS MAURICE NAGAR PAGE NO. 11 / 11