Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Asif on 17 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS02, NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI PRESIDED BY: SH. ANMOL NOHRIA, DJS
STATE Vs. MOHD. ASIF
FIR No. : 1299/2015, PSNEW USMANPUR, u/S 392/411/34
CNR NO. DLNE020003452016
: JUDGMENT :
1.FIR No. 1299/2015
2.Unique Case no. 120/2016
3.Title State Vs. Mohd. Asif
3(A).Name of complainant Sariyat Ullaha Khan S/o Ijjat
Ullaha Khan
3(B).Name of accused Mohd. Asif S/o Md. Jikaria,
R/o H.no. F45, Near PS
Seelampur, New Seelampur,
Delhi53.
3 (C). Representation on Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Ld.
behalf of State APP for the State.
4.Date of institution of 16.01.2016
challan
Digitally
signed by
5.Date of Reserving 20.09.2025 NOHRIA
NOHRIA
ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
2026.03.17
14:39:13
+0530
State vs. Mohd. Asif FIR No. 1299/2015 P.SNew Usmanpur Page No. 1 of 7
judgment
6.Date of pronouncement 17.03.2026
7.Date of commission of 17.11.2015 offence
8.Offence complained of 392/411/34 IPC.
9.Offence charged with 392/411/34 IPC
10.Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
11.Final order ACQUITTED Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision of the Case :
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 17.11.2015 at about 08:00 PM, the accused Mohd. Asif alongwith two unknown accomplices (since not arrested) in furtherance of their common intention robbery of one purse containing Rs. 1,000/, two ATM cards and one mobile phone make China Sim no. 9555170982 and one tablet phone Sim no. 9582061830 from possession of complainant Shariyadullah Khan and cash, one purse containing Rs. 5,700/ cash, DL, ATM Card, two PAN cards, one ID card and one mobile phone make Samsung Grand2, white colour from possession of one Raja Kumar and on the same date, accused was found in possession of one mobile phone make Samsung Grand2, white colour, IMEI no. Digitally signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.03.17 14:39:19 +0530 State vs. Mohd. Asif FIR No. 1299/2015 P.SNew Usmanpur Page No. 2 of 7 352116061419980 & 352117061419983 belonging to one Raja Kumar which as recovered from his possession and which he dishonestly received or retained in his possession knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen property. On the basis of the complaint, the present case FIR was registered at PSNew Usmanpur and after conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed for the offences u/S 392/411/34 IPC against the accused persons.
2. On appearance, same was supplied to him and on finding a prima facie case against the accused, charges u/S 392/411/34 IPC was framed against the accused vide order dated 12.02.2016 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Thereafter, matter was listed for Prosecution Evidence. The prosecution had cited a total of 07 witnesses in support of its case. However, during the trial the complainant/PW/Sariyatullah Khan remained unserved despite issuance of summons through SHO concerned and consequently he was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 16.03.2020 and cocomplainant/PW Raja Kumar remained unserved despite issuance of summons through DCP Digitally signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL concerned and consequently he was dropped from the list of witnesses Date:
ANMOL 2026.03.17 14:39:26 +0530 State vs. Mohd. Asif FIR No. 1299/2015 P.SNew Usmanpur Page No. 3 of 7 vide order dated 04.12.2023.
4. After the same, Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that the complainants are the material witnesses who have been dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, accused shall be acquitted without making him go through the rigors of trial.
5. It is noted that the complainants were summoned on various occasions but they could not be served despite summons through SHO/DCP concerned. Therefore, vide separate order the witnesses were struck off from the list of prosecution witnesses. Since the complainants were the only material witnesses who can prove the property being stolen property and the ownership of the same or the factum of the robbery or extension of immediate threat of injury; and the remaining witnesses were formal in nature, therefore, the remaining witnesses were also dropped and PE was closed because there was no chances of improvement in the case of prosecution as complainants have also been dropped from the list of witnesses.
6. In this regard reference may be made to a Division Bench Digitally judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of Govind signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.03.17 14:39:34 +0530 State vs. Mohd. Asif FIR No. 1299/2015 P.SNew Usmanpur Page No. 4 of 7 & Ors vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104(2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that : "..In cases where ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak or there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. "
7. Right to speedy trial is constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the accused person. It has been held in P.Ramchandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2022 SC 1856 that the court should exercise its power available under Criminal Procedure Code to give effect to the right of speedy trial to the accused. Similar observations were made in Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Mahrashtra AIR 2008 SC 3057. Furthermore, in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Abr. 1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that valuable time of the court should not be wasted merely for formal completion of procedure when there is no chance of the trial Digitally signed culminating in conviction. NOHRIA by NOHRIA ANMOL Date: ANMOL 2026.03.17 14:39:40 +0530 State vs. Mohd. Asif FIR No. 1299/2015 P.SNew Usmanpur Page No. 5 of 7
8. As nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused, the examination of accused u/S 313 r/w Section 281 Cr.PC is dispensed with.
9. It is cardinal principal of criminal law that accused be presumed to be innocent till prove guilty. Also, it is a settled principal of criminal law that the prosecution has to prove its case to the hilt and beyond reasonable doubt, which in the instant case the prosecution has failed to do. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion, there is no incriminating evidence on record against the accused. Thus, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Mohd. Asif S/o Mohd. Zikariya is acquitted of the offences punishable u/S 392/411/34 IPC.
10. Bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused stand discharged. Original be returned to rightful owner after cancellation of endorsement. Superdarinama, if any, hereby stands cancelled.
Digitally signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL Date: ANMOL 2026.03.17 14:39:46 +0530
State vs. Mohd. Asif FIR No. 1299/2015 P.SNew Usmanpur Page No. 6 of 7
11. Accused is directed to furnish bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with a surety of like amount u/S 437A Cr.P.C and is directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when directed.
12. This judgment contains 07 pages. This judgment has been signed and pronounced by the undersigned in open court.
13. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Karkardooma forthwith.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by NOHRIANOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.03.17 14:39:53 +0530 Announced in the open (ANMOL NOHRIA) Court on 17th March, 2026 JMFC02/NE/KKD COURTS State vs. Mohd. Asif FIR No. 1299/2015 P.SNew Usmanpur Page No. 7 of 7