Delhi District Court
State vs Ikram on 17 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ RAI, JMFC01,
NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI
STATE VS. IKRAM & ORS.
FIR No. 50 / 2005
PS NEW USMANPUR
U/S 3/4/5/8 ITP Act
Date of institution of the case : 27.05.2005
Date of judgment reserved : 07.11.2025
CNR : DLNE020000522005
Date of commission of offence : 11.02.2005
Name of the complainant : Inspector SR Meena
Name and address of accused : (1) IKRAM (since expired)
S/o Alla Raze,
R/o Gyani Ka Makaan,
Gali No.2, 1st Pushta,
New Usmanpur, Delhi.
(2) SHAHID (since expired)
S/o Rashid
R/o Gyani Ka Makaan,
Gali No.2, 1st Pushta,
New Usmanpur, Delhi.
(3) NIZAM (declared PO)
S/o Jabbar Khan
R/o Gyani Ka Makaan,
Gali No.2, 1st Pushta,
New Usmanpur, Delhi.
(4) SHABANA
W/o Mamman
R/o Gyani Ka Makaan,
STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR PANKAJ PAGE NO. 1 / 23
RAI
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ RAI
Date: 2025.12.17
14:54:31 +0530
Gali No.2, 1st Pushta,
New Usmanpur, Delhi.
(5) RUBINA
W/o Sheludeen
R/o Gyani Ka Makaan,
Gali No.2, 1st Pushta,
New Usmanpur, Delhi.
(6) HASINA (declared PO)
W/o Arif
R/o Gyani Ka Makaan,
Gali No.2, 1st Pushta,
New Usmanpur, Delhi.
(7) RANI (declared PO)
W/o Nizam
R/o Gyani Ka Makaan,
Gali No.2, 1st Pushta,
New Usmanpur, Delhi.
(8) RESHMA (declared PO)
W/o Shahid
R/o Gyani Ka Makaan,
Gali No.2, 1st Pushta,
New Usmanpur, Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s.3/8 ITP Act
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Judgment : 17.12.2025
Final order : Accused Shabana & Rubina acquitted.
JUDGMENT
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR Digitally PAGE NO. 2 / 23 signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.12.17 14:54:38 +0530
1. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 11.02.2005 IO/Inspector S.R. Meena received secret information regarding a brothel and prostitution activities being run at Gyani Ka Makan, Gali No. 2, Ist Pushta, Usmanpur. Hence, a raid was conducted by the raiding party. It is alleged that on the said day when the raid was conducted at about 07.30 p.m. accused Ikram, Shahid and Nazam, in furtherance of their common intention, were found to be assisting in keeping the management of brothel and acted as pimps on behalf of prostitutes namely, Shabana, Rubina, Hasina, Rani and Reshma and that they were procured for the purpose of prostitution work at that place. It is further alleged that accused Shabana, Rubina, Hasina, Rani and Reshma assisted in keeping the brothel and by words and gestures they have solicited decoy customer Ct.Amar Singh for the purpose of prostitution. Hence, the present FIR was registered. COURT PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE:
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed u/s 3/4/5/8 of ITP Act and the accused persons were consequently summoned. Provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with after appearance of the accused.
Charge u/s 3/4/5 of ITP Act was framed against the accused accused Ikram, Shahid and Nazam and charge u/s 3/8 of ITP Act was framed against accused Shabana, Rubina, Hasina, Rani and Reshma vide order dated 21.07.2006 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of proceedings the accused persons namely, Ikram and Shahid passed away and proceedings abated qua both of them. Moreover, other co-accused namely, Nizam, Rani, Hasina and Reshma were already declared as proclaimed persons during the proceedings. Therefore, the findings and observations in this judgment shall be limited to the role of accused Shabana and Rubina only.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION :
4. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined 13 witnesses.
5. PW-1 is Ct.Amar Singh. He is the decoy customer. He deposed that on 11.02.2005, he was posted at DIU as a Constable. On that day, at about 06:00 PM, he was present in the office along with IO/Inspector S.R. Meena when a secret informer STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR PANKAJ PAGE NO. 3 / 23 RAI Digitally signed by PANKAJ RAI Date: 2025.12.17 14:54:59 +0530 came to the office and conveyed information to Inspector S.R. Meena that prostitution was being carried on at 1st Pusta, between Gali No. 2 and 3, New Usmanpur, Delhi. The said information was recorded in the Rojnamcha register at the Police Station. Thereafter, Inspector S.R. Meena conveyed the said information to the ACP, who was present in the office. Subsequently, Inspector S.R. Meena constituted a raiding party comprising of PW-1, Constable Devraj, Constable Yogender, and other officials whose names he does not recall. The raiding party, along with the secret informer, proceeded to the said location in a government vehicle while dressed in civil clothes. Upon reaching the spot, the secret informer pointed out the house where the alleged prostitution was being carried on. Inspector S.R. Meena instructed and deployed PW-1 as a decoy customer to solicit prostitution at the said house and handed over to him fifteen currency notes of Rs.100 each. After conducting the personal search of PW-1, a handing-over memo Ex. PW1/A was prepared, bearing his signatures. Constable Yogender was deployed as a shadow witness with PW-1. The said currency notes were signed by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, PW-1 proceeded towards the said house, where he met one person namely Ikramuddin. PW- 1 informed him that he required a girl for sex and also stated that four other persons had come along with him. Ikramuddin stated that he would arrange three more girls and demanded Rs.300 for each girl. He showed three girls namely Sabana, Rubina, and one other girl whose name he does not remember. PW-1 handed over Rs.1,500 to Ikramuddin towards the prostitution of the said girls. As instructed by the Investigating Officer, upon completion of the solicitation, PW-1 gave a pre-decided signal to the raiding party by placing his hand on his head. PW-1, along with Constable Yogender, entered the said house with accused Ikramuddin, where two other persons were also found present. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer along with other members of the raiding party reached the spot and apprehended the accused persons. All the apprehended persons were subsequently taken to the Police Station. During the search of accused Ikramuddin, Rs.1,500 was recovered from his possession, which was the same amount and currency notes earlier handed over by the deponent. PW-1 does not remember the denominations recovered from the other two male accused persons, nor does he recall the recoveries made from accused STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR Digitally PAGE NO. 4 / 23 signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.12.17 14:56:33 +0530 Rubina, Shabana, and other accused persons during their personal search conducted by the woman constable. Thereafter, the accused persons were taken to the hospital for medical examination. Accused Ikramuddin was correctly identified by PW-1. Further, accused Rubina, Sabana, Nizam, and Reshma were also identified by him by their faces, though he could not identify them by their names. He stated that he could not recall the exact amount paid to accused Ikram at the spot or the number of girls produced initially. He identified accused Ikram, Nizam, Shabana, and Rubina in court and stated that accused Ikram and Nizam had produced girls for prostitution. Accused Reshma, Rani, and Haseena had been declared proclaimed offenders, and accused Shahid had expired. He stated that a total sum of Rs.1,500 was handed over by him for the deal, though he could not recall the exact recovery from each accused initially. He deposed that accused Shahid, Ikram and Nizam were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C respectively and their personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F. He identified his signatures on these documents. He correctly identified the case property i.e. currency notes Ex.P1(colly). During cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the State, he confirmed that accused Ikram first produced three girls, namely Shabana, Rubina, and Haseena, and later other accused Nizam and Shahid produced two girls, Rani and Reshma. Accused Ikram fixed Rs.300 per girl, retaining Rs.100 per girl as commission. PW-1 further confirmed that after the pre-arranged signal, the raiding party reached the spot and conducted searches. Cash amounts were recovered from the accused and seized as per seizure memos Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW1/H and Ex.PW1/I. He also deposed that search of accused Shabana, Rubina, Hasina, Rani and Reshma was conducted by W Ct. Durga and that Rs.200 each were recovered from their possession. The total recovered amount of Rs. 1,500 was identified by him in court. He stated that IO Inspector SR Meena prepared the rukka/tehrir which was handed over to Ct. Amandeep Singh for registration of FIR. He stated that due to lapse of time and illness, he was unable to recall all facts during examination-in-chief.
6. PW-2 is ASI Yogender Singh. He is the shadow witness. He deposed that on 11.02.2005, he was posted as a Constable at DIU, North-East District, Delhi. At about 6:30 PM, Inspector S.R. Meena received secret information regarding a brothel and STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR Digitally PAGE NO. 5 / 23 signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.12.17 14:56:40 +0530 prostitution activities at Gyani Ka Makan, Gali No. 2, Ist Pushta, Usmanpur. A raiding party was constituted comprising of IO/Inspector SR Meena, SI Dinesh Dahiya, Ct. Bhoop Singh, Ct. Sant Kumar, Ct. Chaman Lal, Ct. Amar Singh, HC Devraj and Ct. Amandeep. They were briefed by the IO, and they all proceeded to the spot in a government vehicle. Public persons were requested to join the investigation but declined. The secret informer pointed towards the concerned house. Ct. Amar Singh was deployed as a decoy customer and after his search, he was given Rs.1,500 by IO, which were duly signed by the IO. PW-2 was deployed as a shadow witness with instructions to give a pre-arranged signal after completion of the deal. At the spot, accused Ikram, acting as a pimp, negotiated the deal and produced three girls, namely Shabana, Rubina, and Haseena in the house. Accused Shahid and Nizam also produced one girl each, namely Rani and Reshma. He further deposed that Ct. Amar Singh handed over Rs.1,500 to accused Ikram, who fixed the rate at Rs.300 per girl, retaining Rs.100 per girl as commission. After the transaction, PW-2 gave the pre- arranged signal, upon which the raiding party arrived and apprehended the accused persons. Searches were conducted and the signed currency notes were recovered from the accused persons and seized as per seizure memos. Search of accused Shabana, Rubina, Hasina, Rani and Reshma was conducted by W Ct. Durga and Rs.200 each were recovered from their possession. He also deposed that during search of accused Ikram Rs.300/- and during search of accused Shahid and Nizam Rs.100/- each were recovered from their possession. Inspector S.R. Meena prepared the tehrir/rukka Mark x, which was given to Ct.Amandeep who got the FIR registered and returned to the spot. IO also prepared the site plan Mark x1, arrested the accused persons, and recorded the statement of PW-2. He also deposed that the case property was deposited in the malkhana. He correctly identified the case property Ex.P1(colly) in the court. PW-2 correctly identified accused Ikram, Nizam, Shabana, and Rubina in court. Accused Haseena, Rani and Reshma were declared as proclaimed persons and accused Shahid already expired.
7. PW-3 is ASI Devraj. He is one of the member of raiding party. He deposed that on 11.02.2005, he was posted as a Constable at DIU, North-East District, Delhi. At about 6:30 PM, Inspector S.R. Meena received secret information regarding a brothel STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR Digitally signed by PAGE NO. 6 / 23 PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.12.17 14:56:47 +0530 and prostitution activities at Gyani Ka Makan, Gali No. 2, Ist Pushta, Usmanpur. A raiding party was constituted, briefed, and proceeded to the spot. Efforts to join public witnesses failed. Ct.Amar Singh was deputed as a decoy customer and given Rs.1,500/- duly signed and handed over by the IO. Ct.Yogender was deployed as a shadow witness with instructions to give a pre-arranged signal after completion of the deal. Upon the secret informer's indication, Ct. Amar Singh contacted accused Ikram, who acted as a pimp and negotiated the deal and he took decoy customer and shadow witness inside the house. Accused Ikram, along with accused Shahid and Nizam, produced five girls namely Shabana, Rubina, Haseena, Rani, and Reshma. The rate was fixed at Rs.300 per girl, out of which Rs.100 per girl was retained as commission by the accused persons. After the transaction, shadow witness Ct. Yogender gave the pre-arranged signal, and the raiding party entered the premises and apprehended the accused persons. Their personal searches were conducted and the signed currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused persons, including Rs.200 from each girl, Rs.300 from accused Ikram, and Rs.100 each from accused Shahid and Nizam. The recovered currency was seized as per seizure memos. Inspector S.R. Meena prepared the rukka, got the FIR registered by sending Ct. Amandeep to the PS, prepared the site plan, interrogated and arrested the accused persons and recorded the statement of PW-3. Thereafter, they came back to the PS where accused persons were lodged after their medical examination. The case property was deposited in the malkhana. He correctly identified the case property Ex.P1 (colly). PW-3 correctly identified accused Ikram, Nizam, Shabana, and Rubina in court. Accused Haseena, Rani and Reshma were declared as proclaimed persons and accused Shahid already expired.
8. PW-4 is HC Amandeep Singh. He is the member of raiding party and he also took rukka to PS for registration of FIR. He deposed that on 11.02.2005, he was posted as a Constable at DIU, North-East District, Delhi. He deposed that at about 6:30 PM, Inspector S.R. Meena received secret information regarding running of a brothel and prostitution at Gyani Ka Makan, Gali No. 2, Ist Pushta, Usmanpur. A raiding party was constituted and briefed, and proceeded to the spot. Efforts to Digitally STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR signed by PAGE NO. 7 / 23 PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.12.17 14:56:55 +0530 associate public witnesses failed. Ct. Amar Singh was deployed as a decoy customer and was handed Rs.1,500, duly initialled by the IO and given vide handing-over memo. Ct. Yogender was deployed as a shadow witness with instructions to give a pre-arranged signal after completion of the deal. On reaching the spot, accused Ikram, along with accused Shahid and Nizam, acted as pimps and produced five girls namely Shabana, Rubina, Haseena, Rani, and Reshma. The rate was fixed at Rs.300 per girl, out of which Rs.100 per girl was taken as commission by the accused persons. After the transaction, Ct.Yogender gave the signal, whereupon the raiding party entered the premises and apprehended the accused persons. Ct. Amar Singh and Ct. Yogender were present inside the house and upon inquiry they narrated the whole incident to the IO. Personal searches were conducted, and the signed currency notes were recovered from the accused, including Rs.200 from each girl, Rs.300 from accused Ikram, and Rs.100 each from accused Shahid and Nizam. Accused Shabana, Rubina, Hasina, Rani and Reshma were searched by W CT. Durga. The recovered money was seized as per seizure memos. PW-4 further deposed that IO/Inspector S.R. Meena prepared the rukka and gave it to him for registration FIR. He thus went to the PS and got the FIR registered at the PS and returned to the spot with original rukka and copy of FIR, which were handed over to the IO. IO prepared the site plan, interrogated and arrested the accused persons vide arrest memos and recorded the statement of PW-4. The case property was deposited in the malkhana. He correctly identified the case property Ex.P1 (colly). He also correctly identified accused Ikram, Nizam, Shabana and Rubina in court. Accused Haseena, Rani and Reshma were declared as proclaimed persons and accused Shahid already expired.
9. PW-5 is SI Dinesh Dahiya. He is also the member of raiding party. He deposed that on 11.02.2005, he was posted as Sub-Inspector at DIU, North-East District, Delhi. He deposed that at about 6:30 PM, Inspector S.R. Meena received secret information regarding a brothel and prostitution activities at Gyani Ka Makan, Gali No. 2, Ist Pushta, Usmanpur. A raiding party was constituted, briefed, and proceeded to the spot. Attempts to join public witnesses failed. Ct. Amar Singh was deputed as a decoy customer and was handed Rs.1,500, duly signed by the IO and given vide Digitally STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR signed by PAGE NO. 8 / 23 PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.12.17 14:57:02 +0530 handing-over memo. He identified his signatures on handing over memo. Ct. Yogender was deployed as a shadow witness with instructions to give a pre-arranged signal after completion of the deal. On the secret informer's indication, house was identified. Accused Ikram, along with accused Shahid and Nizam, acted as pimps. They met with the decoy customer and negotiated the transaction. The rate was fixed at Rs.300 per girl, out of which Rs.100 per girl was retained as commission by the accused persons. Thereafter, decoy customer and shadow witness went inside the house where five girls namely Shabana, Rubina, Haseena, Rani, and Reshma were produced. Thereafter, Ct. Yogender gave the pre-arranged signal, upon which the raiding party entered the premises and apprehended the accused persons. Searches of accused Shabana, Rubina, Haseena, Rani, and Reshma were conducted by W/Ct. Durga, and the signed currency notes were recovered, including Rs.200 from each girl. He also deposed that Rs.300 from accused Ikram and Rs.100 each from accused Shahid and Nizam were also recovered and were seized vide proper seizure memos bearing the signatures of PW-5. Inspector S.R. Meena prepared the rukka, got the FIR registered, prepared the site plan, interrogated and arrested the accused, conducted their personal searches, and recorded the statement of PW-5. The accused were medically examined and lodged in the police station. The case property was deposited in the malkhana. He correctly identified the case property Ex.P1 (colly). He also correctly identified accused Ikram, Nizam, Shabana and Rubina in court. Accused Haseena, Rani and Reshma were declared as proclaimed persons and accused Shahid already expired.
10. PW-5A is ASI Laique Ahmad. He was the duty officer. He deposed that on 11.02.2025 he was posted as ASI in PS New Usmanpur. At around 07.30 p.m. he received rukka from Ct. Amandeep and registered the present FIR Ex.PW5A/A. He identified his signatures on the FIR as well as on the endorsement Ex.PW5A/B made by him on said rukka. He further deposed that he then handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Amandeep. He also produced the original FIR register in the court.
STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR Digitally signed by PAGE NO. 9 / 23 PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.12.17 14:57:10 +0530
11. PW-6 is W/ASI Durga. She deposed that on 11.02.2005, she was posted as Constable at PS New Usmanpur. At about 7:30 PM, she was informed by the Duty Officer to join the raiding party at Gali No. 2, Gyani Ka Makan. She accompanied another constable to the spot, where other police officials were already present. Upon entering the building, she found five females and three males. She conducted personal searches of the females and recovered two Rs.100 notes from each of them.
Personal search memos for Rubina, Haseena, Shabana, Reshma, and Rani were prepared in her presence (Ex. PW5/K to Ex. PW5/O), bearing her signature. The accused were arrested in her presence (Ex. PW5/F to Ex. PW5/J), and seizure memos for the recovered currency were also prepared (Ex. PW5/A to Ex. PW5/E). She also accompanied the female accused persons for medical examination and identified the accused Rubina and Shabana in court. She could not recall the names of male accused. She correctly identified the case property Ex.P1 (colly).
12. PW-7 is ASI Bhoop Singh. He is also the member of raiding party. He deposed that on 11.02.2005, he was posted as a Constable at DIU, North East, Delhi. On that day, he was present at the DIU office when Inspector S.R. Meena called him at around 6:30 PM regarding secret information about a brothel and prostitution at Gyani Ka Makan, Gali No. 2, Ist Pushta, Usmanpur. The secret informer, SI Dinesh Dahiya, Ct. Amandeep, Ct. Sant Kumar, Ct. Chaman Lal, Ct. Amar Singh, Ct. Yogender, and HC Devraj were present. Inspector Meena briefed the raiding party, and they proceeded to the location in a government vehicle, arriving at around 7:00 PM. Some local persons refused to assist despite requests. Ct. Amar Singh was deployed as a decoy customer, given Rs. 1,500 (15 notes of Rs. 100) after being searched, and instructed to solicit prostitution while Ct. Yogender acted as a shadow witness, signalling completion by waving his hand. At around 7:30 PM, Ct. Yogender signalled, and the raiding party entered the house, apprehending accused Ikram, Shahid, and Nizam, who acted as pimps/agents, along with five girls identified as Rubina, Haseena, Shabana, Rani, and Reshma. Ct. Amar Singh confirmed that he had negotiated the deal with accused Ikram, handed over the money, and that the accused Ikram arranged the girls. WHC Durga joined the party and conducted searches of the STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR PAGE NO. 10 / 23 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.12.17 14:57:18 +0530 accused Shabana, Rubina, Hasina, Rani and Reshma, recovering money from each of them. He deposed that due to lapse of time he does not remember how much amount was recovered from all accused persons. The recovered currency notes were taken into possession by the IO and sealed in a pullanda and seized vide seizure memo. IO prepared tehrir/rukka which was handed over to Ct. Amandeep, who got the FIR registered in the PS. He further deposed that IO prepared the site plan (Mark X1), interrogated the accused persons, got them medically examined and arrested them vide arrest memos. IO also recorded his statement at the spot. The accused were medically examined and lodged in the police station. The case property was deposited in the malkhana. He correctly identified the case property Ex.P1 (colly). He also correctly identified accused Ikram, Nizam, Shabana and Rubina in court. Accused Haseena, Rani and Reshma were declared as proclaimed persons and accused Shahid already expired.
13. PW-8 is Retd.ACP SR Meena. He is the investigation officer. He deposed that on 11.02.2005, he was posted at DIU, North East District, as Inspector. On that day, he was present at the DIU office. At about 6:30 PM, a secret informer met him in his office and informed him that prostitution activity was being carried out at Gyani Ka Makan, Gali No. 2, First Pushta, New Usmanpur, and that if an immediate raid was conducted, the offenders could be apprehended red-handed. He recorded the said information and made DD No.16 dated 11.02.2005 at DIU/NE which was Ex.PW8/X. He narrated the entire information to ACP, DIU, Shri Sitaram, who directed him to constitute a raiding party and take appropriate legal action. Thereafter, he called the staff present at the office, namely SI Dinesh Dahiya, HC Devraj, Ct. Yogender, Ct. Amar Singh, Ct. Amandeep, Ct. Chaman, Ct. Sant Kumar, and Ct. Bhoop Singh, and briefed them about the information received. A raiding party was constituted. Ct. Yogender and Ct. Amar Singh were in civil dress, while the remaining staff were in police uniform. The raiding party proceeded to the spot in a government Gypsy from the DIU office, accompanied by the secret informer. The said Gypsy was driven by driver Jahoor Haider. Prior to departure, departure entry DD No. 17 dated 11.02.2005, DIU/NE, Ex. PW8/X1, was made. He further deposed that at about 7:00 PM, the Digitally STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR signed by PAGE NO. 11 / 23 PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.12.17 14:57:30 +0530 raiding party reached First Pushta, New Usmanpur, and the vehicle was parked there. He requested 4-5 passersby to join the investigation, but none agreed and they left without disclosing their names and addresses. Without delay, Ct. Amar Singh was deployed as a decoy customer and Ct. Yogender as a shadow witness. He conducted the personal search of Ct. Amar Singh and Ct. Yogender, and no money or incriminating article was found on them. Their personal search was recorded vide memo Ex.PW8/A1. He then handed over 15 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination to Ct. Amar Singh for use as decoy money, vide handing-over memo Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature, after noting down the serial numbers of the said currency notes. Ct. Amar Singh was directed to approach the offenders and negotiate for prostitution, and after completion of the deal, Ct. Yogender was instructed to give a signal by waving his hand over his head. Thereafter, Ct. Amar Singh and Ct. Yogender, along with the secret informer, proceeded to Gyani Ka Makan, First Pushta, Usmanpur. The secret informer identified the said house. In the meantime, W/Ct. Durga along with Ct. Manvir reached the spot and joined the raiding party. Outside the said house, accused Ikram met Ct. Amar Singh. On conversation, accused Ikram stated that he had girls available for prostitution and also arranged the premises for the said purpose. Ct. Amar Singh, along with accused Ikram, entered Gyani Ka Makan, where accused Shahid and Nizam were also present. Initially, three girls were present. Upon demand for more girls, accused Shahid and Nizam arranged and produced two additional girls, making the total five. Ct. Amar Singh handed over Rs. 1,500/- to accused Ikram. Accused Ikram stated that the rate was Rs. 300/- per girl, of which Rs. 100/- per girl was his commission. Accused Ikram paid Rs. 200/- to each of the five girls, retained Rs. 300/- himself, and paid Rs. 100/- each to accused Shahid and Nizam. After completion of the deal, Ct. Yogender gave the pre-decided signal. At about 7:30 PM, the deponent, along with the raiding staff, entered the house. Five girls, namely Haseena, Rubina, Rani, Reshma, and Shabana, were found present along with accused Ikram, Shahid, and Nizam. Ct. Amar Singh and Ct. Yogender narrated the entire incident to the deponent. The house was inspected and all the accused persons were apprehended. W/Ct. Durga conducted the personal search of accused Shabana and recovered two currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination, which STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR Digitally PAGE NO. 12 / 23 signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.12.17 14:57:38 +0530 were seized vide memo Ex. PW5/A. Similar recoveries of two currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination each were effected from accused Rubina, Haseena, Rani, and Reshma, and were seized vide memos Ex. PW5/B, Ex. PW5/C, Ex. PW5/D, and Ex. PW5/E respectively. During the personal search of accused Nizam, one currency note of Rs. 100/- denomination was recovered and seized vide memo Ex. PW1/G. One currency note of Rs. 100/- denomination was recovered from accused Shahid and seized vide memo Ex. PW1/H. Three currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination were recovered from accused Ikram and seized vide memo Ex. PW1/I. He identified his signatures on the apove seizure memos. He further deposed that the recovered currency notes were tallied with the serial numbers earlier noted and were found to be the same decoy currency notes. Thereafter, he prepared rukka Ex.PW8/A and handed it over to Ct. Amandeep for registration of FIR. He identified his signatures on rukka. He also deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex. PW5/B. He interrogated and arrested accused persons vide arrest memos Ex. PW5/E, Ex.PW5/G, Ex.PW5/H, Ex.PW5/I, Ex.PW5/J, Ex.PW1/A, Ex. PW1/B, and Ex. PW1/C respectively. Their personal searches were also conducted vide memos Ex. PW1/D, Ex. PW1/E, Ex. PW1/F, Ex. PW5/K, Ex. PW5/L, Ex. PW5/M, Ex. PW5/N, and Ex. PW5/O respectively. He identified his signatures on site plan, arrest memos and personal search memos. He further deposed that after registration of the FIR, Ct. Amandeep returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka Ex. PW5/A to him. He then recorded disclosure statement of accused Ikram (Ex. PW8/C). He identified his signatures on disclosure statement. He stated that W/Ct. Kamla also reached the spot and joined the investigation. She took the accused persons for medical examination. He further deposed that thereafter, he returned to PS and deposited the case property in the malkhana, and recorded statements of witnesses. W/Ct. Kamla handed over the medical examination reports of the accused persons, which were placed on record. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was prepared and filed before the court. As regards statements of W/Ct. Kamla and driver Jahoor Haider, he deposed that their formal statements were not recorded as they had limited roles in the investigation. During the investigation, efforts were made to trace the owner of the premises; however, the owner could not be found. It STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR Digitally PAGE NO. 13 / 23 signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.12.17 14:57:48 +0530 was revealed that accused Ikram had taken the said premises on rent and was using it for the illegal activity. He correctly identified accused Nizam, Shabana and Rubina in court. The identity of accused Ikram was not disputed at the time of recording of statement of PW-8. Accused Haseena, Rani, and Reshma were already declared proclaimed offenders at the time of recording of evidence of PW-8. Accused Shahid had already expired and proceedings against him were abated.
14. PW-9 is SI Kamla Kanyal. She took the female accused persons namely Haseena, Rubina, Rani, Reshma, and Shabana for their medical examination. She deposed that on 11/12.02.2005, she was posted as a Constable at PS Usmanpur. On 11.02.2005, at about 10:30 PM, while she was present at the police station on night duty, she received a call from the Duty Officer directing her to proceed to Usmanpur First Pushta. She reached Gali No. 2 where she met the IO along with other police officials, including W/HC Durga. Five female accused persons were also present at the spot. She was directed by the IO to take the said five female accused persons to GTB Hospital for their medical examination. Accordingly, she along with other staff, took the accused persons namely Shabana, Rubina, Hasina, Rani, and Reshma to GTB Hospital, where they reached around midnight. Their medical examinations were conducted and MLCs were prepared. She correctly identified accused Rubina and Shabana in the court.
15. PW-10 is ASI Zahoor Haider. He is the driver of government gypsy through which the raiding party reached to the spot. He deposed that on 11.02.2005, he was posted at the office of ACP DIU north-east district as a driver. On that day he was the driver of the government gypsy, bearing no. DL1CF7133 or 34, last two digits he could not recall. He stated that at the evening of that day they went to new Usmanpur area where a raid was conducted. He was with the vehicle outside the said gali the whole time. He brought some ladies and one-two men to PS Usmanpur. During his evidence, from MT section, Seelampur, report was received that the log book regarding the above said vehicle for the date 11.02.2005 was not available in the MT section.
STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR Digitally PAGE NO. 14 / 23
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ RAI
RAI Date:
2025.12.17
14:57:55
+0530
16. PW-11 is Dr. Sanjeeta Behera. She is the medical witness. Her deposition is formal in nature. She identified the signatures of Dr. Rita Modi on the MLC. She deposed that she had been working in the Gynaecology Department of GTB Hospital since January 2002. She deposed that Dr. Rita Modi, who was the Senior Resident at the relevant time, also worked in the same department. In the year 2005, she worked with her, and therefore she was acquainted with and can identify her handwriting and signatures. She deposed that the particulars and signatures appearing at point A on MLC Nos. A-534/05, A-535/05, A-536/05, A-537/05, and A-538/05 belongs to Dr. Rita Modi. The said MLCs were Ex. PW11/A to Ex. PW11/E respectively.
17. PW-12 is HC Niranjan. He is the MHCM of PS New Usmanpur. He brought Store Room Register Part 1 (Register No. 19) from 01.01.2005 to 30.12.2005. He deposed that according to the said register, the article related to FIR No. 50/2005, mentioned in Entry No. 987, had been deposited in the Malkhana, New Usmanpur, by the Inspector on 11.02.2005. The copy of the said entry was marked as Ex. PW12/A (colly) (OSR). He further stated that the then MHC(M), HC Azad Akhtar, had deposited the article mentioned at Serial No. 3 in the District Nazir (North East) through Road Certificate No. 93/21/21 dated 27.05.2021. The said Road Certificate was Ex. PW12/B (OSR).
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED SHABANA AND RUBINA:
18. The prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 29.08.2025. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Shabana and Rubina was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C/351 BNSS. In their statements, they have pleaded innocence and denied the allegations against them. They did not opt for leading defence evidence. Hence, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
19. Ld. Counsel for accused Shabana and Rubina has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused. That evidence of PWs does not inspire any confidence. That no independent public person was cited as witness by the prosecution. That there are many contradictions in testimonies of the witnesses which goes to the root of the case. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that there is no reason to doubt the testimony of prosecution witnesses. They have STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR Digitally PAGE NO. 15 / 23 signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.12.17 14:58:03 +0530 supported the case of prosecution and contradictions which have been pointed by the Ld. Counsel for accused are minor contradictions.
20. The respective submissions of learned Addl. PP for the State and learned Counsel for the accused persons have been considered. The record has been thoroughly and carefully perused.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS QUA ACCUSED SHABANA AND RUBINA:
21. It is a settled proposition of law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is also well settled that in order to prove its case, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. The burden of proving the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts to the accused. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused. It is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. It is a settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt.
22. Both the accused namely, Shabana and Rubina have been charged for the offence under Section 3/8 of the ITP Act for assisting in keeping brothel and for soliciting decoy customer Ct. Amar Singh by words, gestures for the purpose of prostitution. At this stage it is apposite to mention the relevant legal provisions in this regard.
23. Section 3 of ITP Act reads as under:
"3. Punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel-
(1) Any person who keeps or manages, or acts or assists in the keeping or management of, a brothel shall be punishable on first conviction with rigor-
ous imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with rigorous imprison- ment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees. (2) Any person who--
(a) being the tenant, lessee, occupier or person in charge of any premises, STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR Digitally PAGE NO. 16 / 23 signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.12.17 14:58:10 +0530 uses, or knowingly allows any other person to use, such premises or any part thereof as a brothel, or
(b) being the owner, lessor or landlord of any premises or the agent of such owner, lessor or landlord, lets the same or any part thereof with the knowl-
edge that the same or any part thereof is intended to be used as a brothel, or is wilfully a party to the use of such premises or any part thereof as a brothel, shall be punishable on first conviction with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to two thou- sand rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with rig- orous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine.
(2A) For the purposes of sub-section (2), it shall be presumed until the con- trary is proved, that any person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of that sub-section, is knowingly allowing the premises or any part thereof to be used as a brothel or, as the case may be, has knowledge that the premises or any part thereof are being used as a brothel, if,--
(a) a report is published in a newspaper having circulation in the area in which such person resides to the effect that the premises or any part thereof have been found to be used for prostitution as a result of a search made un- der this Act; or
(b) a copy of the list of all things found during the search referred to in clause (a) is given to such person.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, on conviction of any person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of any offence under that sub-section in respect of any premises or any part thereof, any lease or agreement under which such premises have been leased out or are held or occupied at the time of the commission of the offence, shall become void and inoperative with effect from the date of the said conviction."
24. Section 8 of the ITP Act stipulates the offence of seducing or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution. The same reads as under:
"8. Seducing or soliciting for purpose of prostitution.--Whoever, in any public place or within sight of, and in such manner as to be seen or heard from, any public place, whether from within any building or house or not--
(a) by words, gestures, willful exposure of his person (whether by sitting by a window or on the balcony of a building or house or in any other way), or otherwise tempts or endeavours to tempt, or attracts or endeavours to at- tract the attention of, any person for the purpose of prostitution; or
(b) solicits or molests any person, or loiters or acts in such manner as to cause obstruction or annoyance to persons residing nearby or passing by such public place or to offend against public decency, for the purpose of prostitution, shall be punishable on first conviction with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both, and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, and also with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees:
Provided that where an offence under this section is committed by a man, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a period of not less than seven days but which may extend to three months."
25. Now reverting to the facts of present case, the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the testimony of alleged decoy customer PW-1 and the shadow witness STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR PANKAJ PAGE NO. 17 / 23 RAI Digitally signed by PANKAJ RAI Date: 2025.12.17 14:58:17 +0530 PW-2. The other prosecution witnesses except PW-1 and PW-2, were the members of the raiding party, who have derived information of the commission of the offence by the accused persons through the said two witnesses. They are mere hearsay witnesses.
26. The alleged prostitution racket is stated to have been busted by the raid conducted on 11.02.2005, at around 07:30 pm, at Gyani ka Makaan, Gali No.2, 1 st Pushta, Usmanpur. The said place is admittedly a densely crowded residential area. Further, prosecution witnesses have also admitted presence of public persons near and at the said place of raid. The criminal law has duly empowered the investigating officer/police officials to initiate action against the persons who refuse to participate in the investigation. But still, IO neither made any genuine and sincere efforts to join public/independent witnesses nor advanced any plausible explanation as to why no independent witnesses were examined by him. Hence, story of the prosecution is shrouded in suspicion. The witnesses that are examined by the prosecution in the present case are police witnesses, who are interested in the success of the prosecution case and therefore, the probability of them being guided by the extraneous factors, other than truth, cannot be ruled out.
27. In State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh AIR 1994 SC 1872, the Apex Court held that:
''It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e. Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused and also examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of the fact that these provisions have not been complied with and further consider whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the non- compliance. It is well-settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official but as a rule of caution and de-
pending upon the circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent corroboration. This again depends on question whether the official has de- liberately failed to comply with these provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with these provisions.'' (emphasis supplied)
28. Further, the prosecution did not even bring on record necessary DD entries to prove both departure as well arrival of the police officials from/at the police station. Ex.PW/X1 merely shows as to when the raiding party left the PS. There is nothing on record to show as to when the raiding party returned back to the PS after completion Digitally STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR signed by PANKAJ PAGE NO. 18 / 23 PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.12.17 14:58:27 +0530 of raid proceedings. As per Chapter 22 Rule 49 of the Punjab Police the police officials are mandated to record their time of arrival and departure on duty at or from the police station. In the instant case, this provision has not been complied by the concerned police witnesses. The relevant entries regarding both the arrival and departure of the police officials have not been proved on record. Thus, benefit of doubt goes to the accused persons. It has been held in Rattan Lal v. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that;
"if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provi- sions of the Act the Courts will have to approach their action with reserva- tions. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. This failure to bring on record, the DD entries cre- ates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution."
29. Furthermore, in present case, the seal after use was not handed over to an independent witness by the IO. No explanation has come on record as to why seal handing over memo was not made or seal was not handed over to an independent witness. In these circumstances, the possibility of tampering of case property cannot be ruled out. The importance of the seal not being handed over to some independent person has been highlighted down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Safiullah v. State 1993 (1) RCR (Criminal) 622 wherein it was held that: "10. The seals after use were kept by the police officials themselves. There- fore the possibility of tampering with the contents of the sealed parcel can- not be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tampered with. ..... Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused."
30. The above aspect of seal assumes significance inasmuch as in the present case it has emerged on record during the evidence of PW-1 that when the MHC(M) has produced the case property i.e. currency notes for the first time, they were kept in an envelope which was not sealed from before. Therefore, genuineness of the allegedly recovered case property itself gets shrouded in suspicion.
31. Perusal of record shows that prosecution witnesses have deposed that FIR was registered after preparation of seizure memo, accordingly, FIR number could not have surfaced on that seizure memo, however, the seizure memos bear the FIR number. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR was recorded prior to the alleged STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR PANKAJ PAGE NO. 19 / 23 RAI Digitally signed by PANKAJ RAI Date: 2025.12.17 14:58:34 +0530 recovery of the case property or number of the said FIR was inserted in the document after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a credible deal of doubt about the recovery of the case property/currency notes in the manner alleged. That being so, benefit of doubt arising out of such a situation must necessarily go to the accused persons.
32. It is further pertinent to mention that it is the case of prosecution witnesses that search of accused Rubina and Shabana was made by PW W/ASI Durga, however, no personal search of PW W/ASI Durga was made prior to her searching both these accused. No independent witness was present at the time when the personal search was conducted by PW W/ASI Durga. Hence, the possibility of PW W/ASI Durga putting the currency notes in denomination of Rs.100/- signed by IO/Inspector S R Meena cannot be ruled out. Moreover, no DD entry was produced on record to show that she was present at the spot about the alleged version of prosecution.
33. It is noteworthy that the prosecution has not examined the owner of the house nor it has emerged on record that he given any written complaint to the police regarding illegal possession or immoral trafficking by the accused persons. Prosecution has not furnished any justification that why any owner would remain silent when on his property such immoral activities were going on and why no complaint had been made pertaining to the same. The IO PW-8 has only mentioned in his examination-in-chief that the owner of house could not be traced. It is nothing but a self-serving statement. IO expired before his cross-examination, hence, no explanation of IO could be obtained on the above aspects. Hence, a doubt is created in the mind of the Court.
34. It is significant to mention that as per the story of the prosecution, the said raid was conducted as per the information of the secret informer. A doubt is created in the mind of the Court that if such activities were going on in the said house then why the neighbours of the said locality made no complaint regarding such business of immoral trafficking being conducted by the accused persons and why they were not STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR Digitally signed by PAGE NO. 20 / 23 PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.12.17 14:58:42 +0530 examined as prosecution witnesses. Hence, the story of the prosecution does not inspire confidence of the Court.
35. In his testimony PW-1 claims that he has made signal to the raiding party upon striking the deal with accused persons. However, PW-2 in his testimony claims that it was he who signalled to the raiding party. Moreover, PW-1 deposed that Rs.1,500/- were recovered from Ikramuddin, on the other hand PW-2 deposed that Rs.300/- were recovered from Ikramuddin. These major contradictions in the prosecution story makes the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 on the spot highly doubtful.
36. Even otherwise on merits as well, the prosecution has not been successful in proving its case against accused Rubina and Shabana. Regarding the offence u/s. 3 of ITP Act, it was required to be proved that both these accused 'keeps or manages or acts or assists in keeping or management of a brothel'. The terms "keeps or manages"
has not been defined in the present Act. In general parlance it means handling or directing with a degree of skill or to exercise executive, administrative or supervisory directions. As per the testimony of decoy customer and shadow witness, when they both entered into the house after finalising the deal with accused Ikram, he produced three girls including present accused Rubina and Shabana. Thus, from the mere act of production of accused Rubina and Shabana to the decoy customer by said Ikram, it cannot be said that they both were keeping or managing or acting or assisting in keeping or management of the concerned brothel. It does not amount to handling the matter of girls or that that they are exercising any administrative as well as supervisory control over the girls in the brothel. Hence, charge u/s. 3 of ITP Act is not proved by the prosecution.
37. As regards charge u/s. 8 of ITP Act it is to be noted that the said section provides that the seduction/solicitation for the purpose of prostitution should be in any public place or within the sight of and in such a manner as to be seen or heard from a public place whether from any building or house or not. A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the offending act of soliciting or seducing has to be either done in any public place or it has to be done in such a manner that it is within sight of a public place. In the latter case, it is of no consequence if the offending act itself is done from within any building or house. The legislative intent STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR Digitally PAGE NO. 21 / 23 signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.12.17 14:58:51 +0530 behind the provision is to protect public decency. Section 2 (h) of the ITP Act defines public place as any place that is intended for use by, or accessible to, the public. The same also includes public conveyance. The ITP Act was enacted in line with the convention signed by India in New York in the year 1950. The Act per se does not make the prostitution illegal. Rather, the Act was enacted for the purpose of rehabilitation and protection of women who have been trafficked and being made to solicit for the purpose of prostitution.
38. However, in the present case, even if the entire case of prosecution is admitted, there is nothing on record to show that accused Rubina and Shabana were carrying out any act of seduction/solicitation in any public place. On the contrary, from the deposition of decoy customer (PW-1) and shadow witness (PW-2), it has emerged that they both went to the house and from there co-accused Ikram (since expired) took decoy customer inside the house and it was inside the house where the alleged act of seduction/solicitation for the purpose of prostitution took place. It is relevant to note that while it is alleged that both accused Shabana and Rubina made suggestive remarks, it is not the case of the prosecution that they had stepped on the road or caused annoyance to the neighbours or affected public decency in any manner to solicit or entice the decoy customer. Even if the case of the prosecution is taken at the highest, it is not alleged that they were visible from outside or the remarks made by them could be heard from outside either. Thus, it is not the case of prosecution that the alleged act of seduction/solicitation was in the sight of or could be heard from any public place outside the house. None of the PWs have claimed so in their evidence. Further, it is also not the case of prosecution that seduction/solicitation was done in such a manner to cause obstruction or annoyance to persons who were residing nearby or passing by such public place as admittedly the raiding party was standing outside the house and was not aware about the happenings inside the house. It is also not the case of prosecution that both accused Rubina and Shabana were inducing other females to solicit or indulge in prostitution and living on their earnings. Thus, the ingredients of section 8 of ITP Act were also not successfully proved by the prosecution. Accordingly, the charge for alleged offences against the accused Rubina STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR PANKAJ PAGE NO. 22 / 23 RAI Digitally signed by PANKAJ RAI Date: 2025.12.17 14:58:59 +0530 and Shabana has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and thus, they are entitled to be acquitted.
39. Therefore, on the basis of above discussion, accused Rubina and Shabana are hereby acquitted of the charge under 3/8 ITP Act.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance as per rules with the direction that the case be revived as and when the absconder co-accused persons namely, Nizam, Rani, Hasina and Reshma appears/produced before this court.
Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ Date:
RAI RAI 2025.12.17 14:59:08 Announced in the (PANKAJ RAI) +0530 Open Court on17.12.2025 Judicial Magistrate First Class-01 NE, KKD Courts, Delhi It is certified that this judgment contains twenty-three (23) pages and each page bears my signature.
(PANKAJ RAI) Judicial Magistrate First Class-01 NE, KKD Courts, Delhi Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ Date:
RAI RAI 2025.12.17 14:59:14 +0530 STATE VS. IKRAM FIR NO. 50 / 2005 PS NEW USMANPUR PAGE NO. 23 / 23