Delhi District Court
Rajeev Behl vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
DLST010022162024
Cr Rev/112/2024
RAJEEV BEHL Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Rajeev Behl
S/o Mr. S. P. Behl
R/o B-29,
Pamposh Enclave, G. K. 1,
New Delhi-110048 ............... REVISIONIST
VERSUS
State of NCT of Delhi
Through SHO, Police Station - Hauz Khas,
A/58, Police Station Colony, Block A,
Mayfair Gardens,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016 .............. RESPONDENT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 16.03.2024
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 31.08.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 20.01.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By this order I shall decide the revision filed by the revisionist against the order dated 05.02.2024, passed by Ld. MM (06) South/Saket, Delhi on an application u/s 239 Cr.P.C., moved by the revisionist for his discharge and by Digitally signed by which the revisionist has been charged for the commission PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.01.20 17:12:39 +0530 CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 1 of 16 of offences punishable under Section 186/188/353 IPC.
2. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present revision are that on 08.05.2021, the complainant, HC Naresh Chand, Ct. Dalip and other picket staff of PS- Hauz Khas were performing their checking duty at outer ring road in front of Laxman Public School. It is alleged that during the checking at about 7.15 PM a blue BMW car having registration No. HP-15E-5559 was signalled to stop, but the driver of BMW car instead of stopping the car, speedly drove his car towards IIT Flyover, due to which the complainant was narrowely saved and Ct. Amit fell on the ground. The SHO and the Bravo, who were also present there at the time of incident followed the car and they caught the BMW car under the IIT flyover near petrol pump red light. There the driver of the car misbehaved with the police officials. It is alleged that the revisionist also violated the prohibitory order under section 144 CrPC issued by ACP Hauz Khas vide notification no. 3270- 3669/SO-ACP/HK New Delhi in view of outbreak of COVID- 19 pandemic.
3. On these allegations the police registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Section 186/188/353 IPC.
4. After investigation charge-sheet under Section 186/188/353 IPC was filed and revisionist was summoned by the Ld. Trial Court.
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
5. Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK 05.02.2024 dismissed the application u/s 239 CrPC filed Date: 2025.01.20 17:12:44 +0530 CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 2 of 16 by the revisionist on finding sufficient material to frame charge against the accused for offences u/s 186/188/353 IPC.
6. For the sake of convenience the relevant portion of impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court is reproduced as under:
"Perusal of the record shows that the chargesheet has been filed against accused under section 186/188/353 IPC. Indeed, section 195(1)(a) CrPC bars the power of court to take cognizance of offence u/s 186 & 188 IPC except on complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or some other officer to whom he is administratively subordinate. The cognizance upon complaint is taken by court under section 190(1)(a) CrPC whereas the cognizance is taken on police report under section 190(1)(b) CrPC. In the present case police report is filed under the section 186/188/353 IPC. For taking cognizance on offence under section 186 and 188 IPC, complaint had to be filed by the public servant concerned. In the present case complaint under section 195 CrPC of ACP Hauz Khas dated 14.06.2021 is already placed on record for initiating prosecution of accused for said offences. There is no bar of section 195 CrPC for taking cognizance of offence of section 353 IPC. It is also pertinent to mention that it is settled law that when both cognizable and non cognizable offence is alleged against accused and chargesheet is filed under two or more such offences of which at least one is cognizable, the offences shall be tried as if it is cognizable offence. Section 353 IPC is cognizable is nature. Even though filing of complaint is quintessential for prosecuting under section 186 and 188 IPC, but the fact that offence under 353 which is cognizable offence is also alleged against accused, the prosecution as per police report can very well lie against him. Prima facie allegations against accused shows that accused was driving the BMW car on the alleged day of incident and while he was asked to stop his car at picket for checking, he suddenly raised the speed of car due to which Ct. Dilip and Ct. Amit sustained injuries. While he was chased by the police officials, he started misbehaving with them. Further there are also allegation against him that he had violated the notification no. 245-344/R/ACP/HK dt 06.04.2021. Thus, there are sufficient ground for framing charge under section 186/188/353 IPC. The contention of ld counsel for accused is that no MLC of victim is on record. In this regard it is Digitally signed by worth mentioning that under section 353 IPC, mere use of criminal PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.01.20 17:12:48 +0530 force against public servant is sufficient to initiate prosecution. Even though MLC is not on record but the very fact that allegations of CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 3 of 16 usage of criminal force is evident from bare perusal of record, the contention of accused is devoid of merits. It is also the contention of accused that his sister as severely unwell and he went to take medicines and is falsely implicated in the case. The said justification can be raised by the accused at the stage of defence evidence and is not maintainable at this stage. Thus there are sufficient ground for framing charge against accused under section 186/188/353 IPC.
The application for discharge moved on behalf of accused is dismissed."
7. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, accused has preferred this revision on following grounds:-
i. that vide order dated 23.03.2022, Ld. Trial Court had only taken cognizance of the said chargesheet and not of the complaint filed by the officer, whose order had been violated under Section 186/188 IPC.
ii. that the Ld. Trial Court has erroneously held that in the present case, when both cognizable and non-cognizable offence is alleged against the accused and a chargesheet is filed under two or more such offences of which at least one is cognizable, the offences shall be tried as if it is a cognizable offence.
iii. that the Ld. Trial Court ignored the material evidence and vide order dated 23.03.2022, had only taken cognizance on the police report and not on the complaint of ACP, Hauz Khas filed along with the said chargesheet. PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM iv. that the Ld. Trial Court has erroneously held PATHAK Date: 2025.01.20 17:12:51 +0530 CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 4 of 16 that the allegations of usage of criminal force are evident from a bare perusal of the record and that mere use of criminal force against public servants is sufficient to initiate prosecution, however, there is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner has assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant.
v. that in the said chargesheet, there is not even a single averment which specifies any use of force or assault against any public servant or intentionally being stopped or deterred from performing official duties.
vi. that there is no prima facie evidence against the petitioner, such as video recording or photo of the subject matter, apart from the police officers, which shows that the police officers have concocted this case against the petitioner.
vii. that the Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that the IO did not call the petitioner even once to record his side of the story or the reason for the petitioner's movement which establishes that the whole investigation has been done only to implicate the petitioner in a false case.
viii. that even the statement of the wife of the PATHAK Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date:
2025.01.20 17:12:55 +0530 petitioner, who is the prime witness in the said case CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 5 of 16 was not recorded by the IO establishing the fact that the investigation has been done in a prejudicial manner, to array the petitioner as an accused.
ix. that the Ld. Trial Court did not record the material irregularities pointed out on behalf of the petitioner, and passed the impugned order without even considering the fact that IO in the said chargesheet did not submit the requisite documents and government orders which have been allegedly violated.
x. that the impugned order suffers from several inconsistencies and the order passed is erroneous, arbitrary, hence, liable to be set-aside.
8. During arguments, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the Ld. Trial Court cannot take cognizance of the offences committed u/s 186 and 188 of IPC through a chargesheet under Sections 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., without the written complaint being given by same officer whose order has been violated as per Section 195 Cr.P.C. He submitted that for offence under Section 186 and 188 a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. must be filed and Ld. Magistrate must take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. He argued that the observations of Ld. Magistrate that when both cognizable and non-cognizable offence is alleged against the accused and a chargesheet is filed under two or more such offences of which at least one is cognizable, the offences shall be PURSHOTTAM PATHAK tried as if it is a cognizable offence is not based on sound Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.01.20 17:13:00 +0530 CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 6 of 16 legal proposition. He also argued that even the ingredients of section 353 of IPC have not been made out against the petitioner qua the said chargesheet and no charge under section 353 IPC can be framed against the petitioner. He argued that the Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the law that section 195 of Cr.P.C. restricts the general powers of the magistrate given under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. He further submitted that it is a well recognized canon of interpretation that a provision curbing the general jurisdiction of the court must normally receive strict interpretation unless the statute or the context requires otherwise. He prayed that there is no grave suspicion for the purpose of prima facie case, hence the petitioner is liable to be discharged. In support of his arguments Ld. Senior counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
i. Charanjit Singh @ Channi Vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-453- 2023;
ii. C. Muniyappan and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9SCC 567;
iii. Daulat Ram Vs. State of Pubjab AIR 1962 SC 1206; iv. Saloni Arora Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 3SCC 286; v. Sachin and Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2019 BHC 3086; vi. Basir Ul Haq Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1953 SC 293; vii. Gurucharan Singh Arora Vs. State (2002) 96DLT 181 and viii. Manik Taneja Vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 7SCC 423;
9. Contrary to it, Ld. APP for the state has submitted that there is no error or illegality in the detailed order dated 05.02.2024, wherein the Ld. Trial Court has already dealt with the contentions and has passed reasoned order on charge. He argued that at the stage of framing of charge, only prima facie case is to be looked by the court. He PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.01.20 17:13:03 +0530 CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 7 of 16 submitted that there exists a prima facie case for the offences under Section 186/188/353 IPC.
10. Heard the Ld. Senior counsel for the revisionist as well as Ld. Addl. PP for the state and also considered the material on record.
11. The Ld. Trial Court found sufficient material to proceed for trying the accused person under Section 186, 188 and 353 of IPC.
12. Section 186 ,188 and 353 IPC reads as follows:
Section 186 IPC: Obstructing Public servant in discharge of public functions: Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Section 188 IPC: Disobedience to order duty promulgated by public servant. Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; And if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both Section 353 IPC: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished Digitally with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.01.20 17:13:09 +0530 CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 8 of 16 to two years, or with fine, or with both.
13. The reading of the above provisions makes it clear that in order to attract these sections the prosecution is required to establish that there was obstruction to the public servant in discharge of public functions, there was disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant and assault or criminal force was used to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.
14. Section 186 and 188 IPC are part of chapter X of the IPC, which covers offences related to "contempt of lawful authority of public servants". For taking cognizance by court for these offences special procedural scheme has been provided under Section 195 Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:-
195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
1. No Court shall take cognizance -
(a)(i)of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(ii)of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii)of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;
(b)(i)of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii)of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been PURSHOTTAM committed in respect of a document produced or given in PATHAK Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.01.20 17:13:14 +0530 CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 9 of 16 evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii)of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-
clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), [except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.] [Substituted by Act 2 of 2006, Section 3 for "except on the complaint in writing of that Court, of of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate" (w.e.f. 16-4-2006).] (2)Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint :
Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.
15. Section 195(a)(i) provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 172 to 188 of the IPC. except on a written complaint of the public servant concern or his superior.
16. The word complaint used in Section 195(1)(a)(iii) of Cr.P.C. has been defined under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. which reads as under:
"complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.
17. Ld. counsel has contended that the court cannot take cognizance of the offences committed under section 186 and 188 of the IPC. through a chargesheet under section 190(1)(b) of CrPC without the written complaint being given by the same officer whose order has been violated as per section 195 of CrPC. PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Digitally signed by
18. It is not in dispute that the revisionist herein has PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.01.20 17:13:19 +0530 CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 10 of 16 been chargesheeted for the offences u/s 186/188/353 IPC with respect to incident of obstructing Ct. Dilip and Ct. Amit, who were on public duty, violating the notification no. 3270-3669/SO-ACP/HK New Delhi, dated 03.05.2021 and using criminal force to deter them from doing their duty. Admittedly, the chargesheet is accompanied with a complaint as envisaged under section 195 Cr.P.C. The said complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C. has been filed in the court of Ld. MM, Saket Courts, New Delhi, that a prohibitory order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was issued by ACP Hauz Khas in official capacity of ACP Hauz Khas, South District vide order no. 3270-3669/SO-ACP/HK, New Delhi, dated 03.05.2021, extending the curfew on movement of individuals till 5 AM on 10.05.2021. It is mentioned therein that the revisionist was found violating the said directions made in prohibitory order and also obstructed the police officials by using criminal force to them.
19. In the present case sanction under Section 195 Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the accused has been placed on record along with the chargesheet. Hence, ACP Hauz Khas, New Delhi was competent to lodge the complaint under Section 195 CrPC for the prosecution of the revisionist for the offences in question. Daulat Ram's case (Supra) relied upon by the counsel for the revisionist does not render any assistance to him. In the said case, the conviction of the appellant had been set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court as the cognizance of the offence under PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Section 182 IPC had been assumed by the trial court Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.01.20 17:13:24 +0530 CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 11 of 16 without there being any complaint under Section 195 CrPC. However, in the case on hand, the complaint under Section 195 CrPC is very much available on record. Hence, the contention of the counsel for the revisionist on the above score is also without any substance.
20. Ld. Senior Counsel has also contended that the Ld. Trial Court has wrongly concluded that when both cognizable and non-cognizable offences are alleged against the accused and a chargesheet is filed under two or more such offences of which at least one is cognizable, the offences shall be tried as if it is a cognizable offence. The petitioner has been charged for committing the offence punishable under Section 186/188/353 IPC, the offence of obstructing public servant is punishable under Section 186 IPC and is non-cognizable. The other offence u/s 188 IPC for which the revisionist has been charged is cognizable offence but the cognizance for same is barred u/s 195 CrPC. So far as offence punishable under Section 353 IPC is concerned, it being a distinct offence, even if there is no complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. he cannot be discharged.
21. Section 155(4) of the Code of criminal procedure provides that where the cases related to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be cognizable case notwithstanding other offences are non-cognizable. Thus, where the offence is cognizable chargesheet can be filed and offence shall be tried as it is cognizable offence. Further, when two or more PURSHOTTAM PATHAK offences are made out and one of them are non-cognizable Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.01.20 17:13:28 +0530 CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 12 of 16 and other are cognizable, the complaint case need not be filed as police filed the charge-sheet. Therefore, the legal issue raised on behalf of revisionist is without any force. As far as framing of charge for offence u/s 353 IPC is concerned, there is prima facie sufficient material on record to proceed against accused and I do not find any reason to take a view different from what Ld. Trial Court has taken.
22. There is no dispute as to the legal proposition laid down in the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Senior counsel for the revisionist. However, there are of no help to the revisionist as same are passed in facts and circumstances of those cases.
23. It is a settled law that at the stage of consideration on charge, there is no requirement of evaluating the evidence or final probability of case projected by complainant. Hence, at this stage, it is sufficient if the order shows that trial court has applied its mind to the facts of case and material on record. Neither the defence of accused nor the authenticity of claim of prosecution is required to be decided at the stage of the charge. The arguments advanced by Ld. senior Counsel for the revisionist and averments made in revision touch the probable value of claim made by both the sides which cannot be done at the stage of charge. The law on the question of consideration of charge is well settled. If the criminal court, on consideration of the material submitted PURSHOTTAM with the charge sheet finds that a grave suspicion exists PATHAK Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK about the involvement of the accused in the crime alleged, Date: 2025.01.20 17:13:30 +0530 CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 13 of 16 it is expected to frame the charge and put the accused on trial. At such initial stage of the trial, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not required to be meticulously judged, nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused.
24. In the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :
"It is not obligatory for the judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under S. 227 or S. 228 of the Code. At that stage the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. XXXXX Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. XXXXX If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it s so at the initial stage of making an order under S. 227 or S. 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under S. 228 and not under S. 227."
25. Further, in State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi & Others, [(2008) SCC 239], Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that at the stage of framing of charge, the Trial Court is not to examine and access in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
26. Similar are the observations in "State of Bihar Vs. Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.01.20 17:13:34 +0530 CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 14 of 16 Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 Hon'ble Supreme Court"; "Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal 1979 Crl. L.J.154, Hon'ble Supreme Court" & " State of M.P Vs. S. B Johari 2000 Crl. L. J. 944 (SC)".
27. The grounds taken by the revisionist call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so, even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore, cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the revisionist, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that in view of the material available on record, a grave suspicion arises against revisionist for having committed offence under section 186/188/353 IPC and therefore, there is no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the impugned order and same does not call for any interference by this Court.
28. In view of above discussion, I do not find any legal infirmity or material illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which would occasion injustice, if not set- aside. Hence, the revision petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
29. TCR be sent back to court concerned along with Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.01.20 17:13:37 +0530 CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 15 of 16 copy of present judgment.
30. Revision petition be consigned to record room after Digitally signed by due compliance. PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.01.20 17:12:31 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PURSHOTAM PATHAK) TODAY ON THIS ASJ-05(SOUTH) 20th DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 SAKET COURTS: N.D (This judgment contains total 16 signed pages) CR Rev No. 112 of 2024 Rajeev Behl Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi Page no. 16 of 16