Delhi District Court
Cr. Case/1005/2019 on 24 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF Dr. SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTHWEST),
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
State v. Indu Devi
FIR No. 285/2018
Police Station : Najafgarh
Under Section : 188 IPC
Unique Computer ID Number : 1005/2019
Date of institution : 24.01.2019
Date of reserving : Oral
Date of pronouncement : 24.01.2019
JUDGMENT
a) Serial Number of the Case : 27/2/2019
b) Date of commission of offence : 09.10.2018
c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Anuj Kumar S/o Sh.
Amrit Lal Gupta, R/o RZB 212, B Block, Arjun Park, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
d) Name, parentage and address : Indu Devi W/o Sh. Vinod of the accused Bharti, R/o House No. RZB 212, B Block, Arjun Park, Najarfgarh, New Delhi.
e) Offence complained of : Section 188 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial
g) Final order : Accused Indu Devi stands
acquitted of the offence
charged with.
State v. Indu Devi
FIR No. 285/2018 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 1 of 6
h) Date of final order : 24.01.2019
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS
FOR THE DECISION
CASE OF PROSECUTION
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 09.10.2018, HC Virender Singh alongwith Ct. Sombir was on patrolling and Tenant Verification duty in the area of Beat no. 5 and at about 06.50 pm, when they reached at House No. RZ-B-212, B-Block, Arjun Park, New Delhi, one Anuj Kumar S/o Sh. Amrat Lal Gupta met them and gave his statement in writing that he is residing in the aforesaid house on rent and pays his rent to Smt. Indu Devi (accused) and the said Indu Devi has not got his police verification done. HC Virender Singh prepared rukka on the statement of Sh. Anuj Kumar and got the present case registered. HC Virender Singh prepared site plan at the instance of the complainant. Notice U/s 41.A Cr. P. C. was served upon the accused who joined the proceedings. During the course of further investigation, IO HC Virender Singh recorded the statements of witnesses and also obtained permission U/s 195 Cr. P. C. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet (without arrest of the accused) was filed in the court.
2. Vide order of even date, notice for the offence punishable U/s 188 IPC has been framed against the accused to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution in all has examined only one witnesses i.e. PW-1 Sh. Anuj Kumar i.e. the complainant in the present case. State v. Indu Devi FIR No. 285/2018 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 2 of 6
4. Prosecution evidence has been closed vide detailed order of even date. Statement of accused under Section 313 read with Section 281 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded in conformity with the principles of natural justice. The accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
5. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused. The submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Ld. Counsel for the accused have been heard and considered.
6. The accused has been charged for the offences punishable under Section 188 IPC.
7. To prove the guilt of the accused in respect of the offence punishable under Section 188 IPC, the star witness of the case of prosecution was PW-1 Mr. Anuj Kumar i.e. the complainant and the case of prosecution solely rests on his testimony, more particularly in view of the fact that besides the testimony of PW-1 there is nothing on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence. PW-1 Mr. Anuj Kumar has, however, not supported the case of prosecution. While being examined as PW-1 Mr. Anuj Kumar deposed in the court that he is residing at the given address for the last three years and the said house belongs to the accused, who happens to be his Guru Behan. He stated that he is not residing at the said address as a tenant. He added that the police had obtained his signatures on blank papers.
State v. Indu Devi FIR No. 285/2018 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 3 of 6 PW-1 was declared hostile by Ld. APP for the State and was cross- examined as he had resiled from his previous statement. However, despite cross-examination by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, PW-1 did not support the prosecution version. During the course of his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, PW-1 Sh. Anuj Kumar, though admitted his signatures on the complaint Ex.PW1/A. He, however, volunteered that he had signed the blank papers on the asking of the IO. He denied the suggestion that he had not signed on any blank paper. He also denied the suggestion that he was residing at the aforesaid address as tenant for the last three years and accused Indu was taking monthly rent from him. He also denied that he was residing there without any police verification and that he was intentionally and deliberately deposing falsely having won over by the accused.
8. A careful perusal of the record reveals that besides the testimony of PW-1, there is nothing on record to show that there was any relationship of tenant and landlord between the accused and the complainant or that the complainant was residing as tenant in the house of the accused without the landlady/accused having taken any steps for getting his particulars verified form the local police station. Even there is nothing on record to show that the house in question actually belonged to accused Indu Devi. Neither the IO has bothered to collect any documentary evidence viz. any title documents in respect of the house in question or any Rent Agreement between the accused and the complainant nor he recorded the statement of any neighbour of the accused in this regard. Even the ID proof i.e. Copy of the Passport of the complainant filed on record does not reflect his address as RZ-B-212, B Block, Arjun Park, New Delhi.
State v. Indu Devi FIR No. 285/2018 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 4 of 6
9. It is also relevant to note here that even as per the complaint Ex.PW1/A, the complainant is residing at the house of the accused for the last three years from the date of complaint i.e. 09.10.2018, whereas the order no. 4319-39/R/ACP/Najafgarh, New Delhi of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, which is alleged to have been contravened by the accused is dated 15.09.2018, thus the same cannot have its retrospective effects. This is more particularly in view of the fact that the relevant portion of the said order reads as under :-
.... do hereby make this written order, that no land lord/owner of any house/property which falls under the jurisdiction of the area of police stations as specified above, shall let/sublet/rent out any accommodation to any person unless and until he/she has furnished the particulars of the tenant(s) in a specified Performa to the Station House Officer of the police station concerned. ...
Stress here is laid on the word 'shall' which suggests that the said order had been passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police with a view to deter any land lord/owner from letting/subletting/rent out any accommodation in future from the date of the said order and the said order does not assign any obligation/duty upon the landlords/owners who have already let out their properties prior to the said order.
10. Having carefully considered the material produced before the court, in view of the aforesaid discussion, coupled with the testimony of PW-1 recorded in the court, this court is of the considered view that since the star witness of the case of prosecution has not supported its State v. Indu Devi FIR No. 285/2018 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 5 of 6 case at all and the other witnesses cited by the prosecution are either formal witnesses or the police officials who had joined or conducted investigation after the accident, no fruitful purpose will be served by examining the remaining witnesses whose testimonies are of no aid to the case of prosecution. There is no other material on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence.
11. In view of the aforesaid, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
12. Accused Indu Devi is accordingly acquitted of the offences punishable U/s 188 IPC.
13. Provisions of Section 437 A Cr. P. C. have been complied with.
14. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court on 24.01.2019 (Dr. SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI) CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS NEW DELHI.
State v. Indu Devi FIR No. 285/2018 P.S.: Najafgarh Page 6 of 6