Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Kunwar Bahadur Singh on 14 March, 2026
___________________________________________________
IN THE COURT OF MAYANK GOEL
ACJM-02-CUM-ACJ, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS
NEW DELHI
____________________________________________________
CBI vs. KUNWAR BAHADUR SINGH & ORS.
Case No. : CC No. CBI/25/2021
FIR/RC No. : 8S/2019/2019
U/s : 166A IPC
Name of Branch : CBI/ACB/Lucknow
CNR No. : DLCT12-000069-2021
Name of the Complainant : Smt. Asha Singh
W/o Late Sh. Surendra
Singh @ Pappu Singh,
R/o VPO Makhi, Distt.
Unnao, U.P.
Name, parentage & address : (i) Kunwar Bahadur
of the accused persons Singh
S/o Late Sh. Jagannath
Singh
R/o H.No. 18, YOZNA 4-
A, New Azad Nagar,
Satbari Road, Post-Delhi
Sujanpur, Kanpur, UP.
(ii) Dharam Prakash
Shukla
S/o Late Sh. Raghunath
Prasad Shukla,
R/o Village Khampur
Saraiya, P.S. Amethi
District, Amethi, UP.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
CC No. CBI/25/2021 Page No. 1 of 18
RC-8S/2019/2019 Digitally signed
by MAYANK
CBI vs. Kunwar Bahadur Singh & Ors. MAYANK GOEL
GOEL Date:
2026.03.14
17:04:31 +0530
(iii) Digvijay Singh
S/o Raja Singh Yadav,
R/o H.No. E-333, World
Bank Colony, Barra,
Kanpur Nagar.
The plea of the accused persons: Not guilty
Final Judgment : Acquitted
Date of institution of case : 11.07.2018
Date of Judgment : 14.03.2026
Counsels for the parties:
Sh. Anurag Modi, Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI.
Sh. Surya Nath Pandey, Ld. counsel for all the accused persons.
JUDGMENT
INDEX S.No. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
1. Brief facts of the case 3 2. Charge 5 3. Evidence 5 Details of witness examined 5 Prosecution witnesses 6 List of documents exhibited 10 Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. 11 5. Arguments 11 6. Analysis and findings 12 7. Conclusion 17 8. Final Order - Acquittal 171. Accused Kunwar Bahadur Singh (A-1), Dharam Prakash Shukla (A-2) and Digvijay Singh (A-3) were sent by the CBI to __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/25/2021 Page No. 2 of 18 RC-8S/2019/2019 CBI vs. Kunwar Bahadur Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.14 17:04:42 +0530 face trial for commission of offences punishable under Section 166A IPC.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The factual background for the registration of present FIR was that initially a case was registered on 12.04.2018 in CBI, ACB, Lucknow u/s 363/366/376/506 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 against Shashi Singh and Kuldeep Singh Sengar. After conducting the investigation, CBI has filed chargesheet but kept further investigation open u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. During further investigation of that case, it was found that the victim through her complaint dated 17.08.2017 addressed to the Chief Minister, UP made allegations of rape against Kuldeep Singh Sengar and also inaction by the police officials. That the said complaint was uploaded to CM IGRS Portal bearing no. 15156170269171 which was forwarded to District Police Unnao through IGRS Portal and the enquiry of the same is marked to accused Kunwar Bahadur Singh, the then CO, Safipur, Unnao.
3. During investigation, it was found that victim appeared before accused Kunwar Bahadur Singh and owned her complaint. Accused Kunwar Bahadur Singh forwarded the complaint to Police Station (PS) Makhi for a report. At that time, accused Dharam Prakash Shukla was posted as Station Officer, PS Makhi. The complaint was marked to accused Digvijay Singh, the then Sub-Inspector, PS Makhi. Accused Digvijay Singh conducted the inquiry and submitted his report on 24.08.2017, __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/25/2021 Page No. 3 of 18 RC-8S/2019/2019 Digitally signed by CBI vs. Kunwar Bahadur Singh & Ors. MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.14 17:04:48 +0530 which was forwarded on the same day to the Circle Officer (CO), Safipur, Unnao. In his report, accused Digvijay Singh stated that Criminal Case No. 316/2017 under Sections 363/366 IPC had already been registered at PS Makhi. After investigation, a charge sheet under Sections 363/366 & 376D IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the POCSO Act was filed against accused Naresh Tiwari, Shubham Singh, and Brijesh Yadav. He further reported that the other allegations made by the victim in the complaint were found to be baseless and false, and that the complainant was habitual of submitting applications. Based on the report of PS Makhi, accused Kunwar Bahadur Singh submitted his report dated 25.11.2017, mentioning the police action taken in Case No. 316/2017 related to the incident dated 11.06.2017.
4. Investigation further revealed that these officers being public servant neither properly inquired nor ensured the proper enquiry of the allegations particularly relating to the incident of 04.06.2017 and they have also not mentioned about it in their findings in their reports submitted to the senior officers/authorities. Though it is found in the reports of PS Makhi as well as in accused Kunwar Bahadur Singh, CO, Safipur that other allegations mentioned in the complaint are false and baseless, without mentioning about specific finding.
5. Investigation further revealed that similar complaints were forwarded to various authorities and most of these complaints were marked to the accused Kunwar Bahadur Singh, CO, Safipur who repeatedly submitted identical recommendations without fresh or independent examination.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/25/2021 Page No. 4 of 18 RC-8S/2019/2019 Digitally signed CBI vs. Kunwar Bahadur Singh & Ors. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.14 17:04:55 +0530
6. Investigation transpired that accused Kunwar Bahadur Singh (then Circle Officer, Safipur), accused Dharam Prakash Shukla (then SHO, PS Makhi), and accused Digvijay Singh (then Sub Inspector) failed to perform their statutory duties after receiving information about the rape incident of 04.06.2017. Despite being aware of a cognizable offence against Kuldeep Singh Sengar, they did not record the information as required by law, amounting to disobedience of legal mandates and disclosing commission of offences under the IPC against all three officers.
7. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court and the cognizance was taken under Section 166A against all the accused vide order dated 26.10.2020.
CHARGE
8. Vide order dated 10.04.2023, charges were framed under Section 166A IPC against the accused Kunwar Bahadur Singh, Dharam Prakash Shukla and Digvijay Singh.
EVIDENCE
9. To prove its case, the prosecution examined six (06) witnesses: -
Name and Designation Purpose PW1-Sh. Maulendra Kumar, He handed over the
Head Constable, Circle Safipur documents to the CBI w.r.t. office, District Unnao, U.P. IGRSNo. 15156170269171. PW2- Sh. Santosh Kumar, He handed over the certified Inspector, Ambedkar Nagar, UP. copy of GD entry to CBI. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/25/2021 Page No. 5 of 18 RC-8S/2019/2019 Digitally signed CBI vs. Kunwar Bahadur Singh & Ors.
MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2026.03.14
17:05:02 +0530
PW3- Victim To prove the complaint.
PW4- Mother of Victim To prove the complaint.
PW5-Sh. Vivek Ranjan Rai, He handed over the
ACP, Crime Branch, Noida. documents to IO.
PW6-Sh. Pawan Kumar, He is investigating officer
Inspector, CBI, ACB, Lucknow. of this case.
a) PW-1 Maulendra Kumar deposed that he handed over
certain documents to IO/R. R. Tripathi, DSP, CBI, after obtaining them from the Circle Office, Safipur related to IGRS No. 15156170269171, with respect to complaint of prosecutrix and the inquiry report prepared by K.B. Singh (CO, Safipur) and Digvijay Singh (SI). These documents were handed over to the CBI, and a seizure memo was prepared. The witness identified his signatures on the seizure memo, marked as Mark X. PW1 was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons despite opportunity being given.
b) PW-2 Santosh Kumar deposed that while posted as SHO, PS Makhi in December 2019, he provided the certified copies of General Diary entries dated 27.07.2017 and 24.08.2017 to IO through a letter dated 18.12.2019. The letter along with the certified copy of the GD entry dated 24.08.2017 is Ex. PW2/1 (colly).
PW2 was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons despite opportunity being given.
c) PW-3/Victim identified her complaint dated 17.08.2017 filed on the UP CM Portal (IGRS No. 15156170269171) as being __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/25/2021 Page No. 6 of 18 RC-8S/2019/2019 Digitally signed CBI vs. Kunwar Bahadur Singh & Ors. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.14 17:05:10 +0530 in her handwriting and bearing her signature, relating to sexual assault by Kuldeep Singh Sengar and also about the gang rape committed upon her. She deposed that she and her family submitted multiple complaints/follow-up complaints to various authorities which are Ex. PW3/1 (subject to objection regarding proof). That during the follow up complaint, she was called by accused Kunwar Bahadur Singh and her statement was recorded. Copy of statement is Mark-A. That prior to the IGRS complaint she had not named Kuldeep Singh Sengar in any complaint before any police authority. That no FIR was lodged by the accused Kunwar Bahadur Singh and merely enquiry was done. That the accused Kunwar Bahadur Singh also advised her not to name Kuldeep Singh Sengar as he was Bahubali.
PW3 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for all the accused and deposed she did not remember filing any police complaint against Kuldeep Singh Sengar before submitting her IGRS complaint on 17.08.2017. She admitted that before the IGRS complaint, no police complaint was filed regarding sexual assault by Kuldeep Sengar. She further admitted that she initially did not inform her mother about the incident of rape on 04.06.2017.
d) PW-4 Mother of Victim deposed that her daughter was sexually assaulted in the year 2017 and they had filed complaint with several authorities for seeking justice. After seeing the complaint dated 17.08.2017 IGRS No. 15156170269171 to CM Portal, the witness deposed that this is the copy of complaint which was lodged by her daughter in the CM Portal of State of __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/25/2021 Page No. 7 of 18 RC-8S/2019/2019 Digitally signed CBI vs. Kunwar Bahadur Singh & Ors. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.14 17:05:17 +0530 UP. The witness is read over copy of complaints annexed with letter of Vivek Ranjan at Sr. No. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 and she deposed that she had given complaint to various authorities however she did not remember content of the complaint as she is illiterate person. Those complaints were related to sexual assault committed upon her daughter by Kuldeep Singh Sengar. That police person did not lodge the complaint against Kuldeep Singh Sengar as he was influential person. Copy of complaint at Sr. No. 16 to 21 is Ex.PW4/1 (colly).
PW4 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for all the accused and admitted that no police complaint regarding the sexual assault by Kuldeep Singh Sengar was filed before the IGRS complaint dated 17.08.2017 on CM Portal.
e) PW-5 Vivek Ranjan deposed that in the month of April 2018, while posted as Circle Officer, Safipur, he collected copies of various complaints related to the victim of CBI case RC-8, 9, 10 of 2018, following a request from the SP, CBI, Lucknow and compiled these complaints in his letter dated 19.04.2018 and forwarded it to the DSP, CBI, and ACP, Lucknow. The letter alongwith annexures are Ex. PW5/1 (colly) (117 pages). She identified her own signature on the letter (at Point A) and confirmed the signatures of Kunwar Bahadur Singh (at Point B) and Ashtbhuja Singh, then Additional SP (at Point C), on multiple pages.
PW5 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for all the accused and deposed that complaint in question was not filed during their tenure, and he was not personally aware of the facts.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/25/2021 Page No. 8 of 18 RC-8S/2019/2019 Digitally signed CBI vs. Kunwar Bahadur Singh & Ors.
MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2026.03.14
17:05:23 +0530
That in UP, there are IGRS cell in each district who receive complaints submitted via the Chief Minister's Portal and distribute them to the concerned police stations for action. In some districts, the police station itself handles IGRS complaints, with an ID assigned to the station in-charge.
f) PW-6 Pawan Kumar deposed that he was the Investigation Officer of this case. While working as Police Inspector with CBI, ACB, Lucknow, he was deputed to conduct further investigation of the case with respect to lapses/illegal act if any committed by the then Police Officers posted with PS Makhi, District Unnao. He accordingly perused record pertaining to RC-8S 2018 ACB, Lucknow lying with CBI Office and compiled the earlier investigation and conducted thorough analysis of the document and statement collected by earlier IO Sh. R.N Tripathi and filed present supplementary charge-sheet qua three accused persons namely Kunwar Bahadur Singh the then CO, Safipur, Dharam Prakash Shukla, the then SHO, PS Makhi and Digvijay Singh, the then SI, PS Makhi u/s 166A, IPC as they were public servant and did not follow mandate provided u/s 166A. That the accused persons failed to register case despite receiving information with respect to commission of offense of sexual assault against the then MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar for having committed offense of rape with victim on 04.06.2017. During investigation, he had gone through statement of witness recorded by earlier IO such as statement of victim, her mother, police officials namely Ashtbhuja Prasad Singh and have cited them as witness and had relied upon documents collected during investigation of this case __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/25/2021 Page No. 9 of 18 RC-8S/2019/2019 CBI vs. Kunwar Bahadur Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.14 17:05:30 +0530 and have filed them alongwith list of additional documents alongwith charge-sheet. The charge-sheet is Ex.PW6/1.
PW6 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for all the accused and deposed that it is correct that this case was registered after the media-hype. He had gone through only documents available. It is correct that he had perused the document and against almost all complaints there is some report of UP Police persons with respect to offense not being made out. It is correct that in most of the report it has been written that an FIR no. 316/2017 has been lodged with respect to gang rape of victim and charge-sheet has been filed against three persons namely Naresh Tiwari, Shubham Singh and Brijesh Yadav. It is correct that before CBI registered the case, this case was highlighted in media and there were rival contentions with respect to version of victim.
10. The list of the documents exhibited by the witnesses abovementioned and relied upon by the prosecution are as follows:-
Exhibit No. of Exhibited Nature of document.
document by which
witness
Mark X PW1 Seizure memo.
Ex. PW2/1(colly) PW2 CBI letter alongwith certified
copy of GD Entry
Ex. PW3/1 PW3 Copies of complaint given by
her to various authorities.
Mark A PW3 Statement of victim recorded
by accused Kunwar Bahadur
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/25/2021 Page No. 10 of 18 RC-8S/2019/2019 Digitally signed by CBI vs. Kunwar Bahadur Singh & Ors. MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.14 17:05:37 +0530 Singh Ex. PW4 Copy of complaints.
PW4/1(Colly)
Ex. PW5/1(colly) PW5 Letter issued by CBI seeking
(117 pages) documents along with those
documents.
Ex. PW6/1 PW6 Chargesheet
STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CrPC
11. After examination of the witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed by the Ld. Sr. PP on 09.01.2026. Statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they denied the allegations and claimed to have been falsely implicated. All accused persons stated that they had done their duties diligently and have been wrongly chargesheeted.
ARGUMENTS
12. I have heard the Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and Ld. counsel for the accused persons.
13. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons relied upon the judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Doliben Kantilal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2013 AIR SCW 4328 and of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Amit Kumar Vs. Joginder Singh and Ors, CRM-M No. 41761-2015 (O&M).
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/25/2021 Page No. 11 of 18 RC-8S/2019/2019 Digitally signed CBI vs. Kunwar Bahadur Singh & Ors. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.14 17:05:45 +0530
14. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the case file and judgments filed on record by the Ld. counsel for the all the accused.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
15. At the outset, it may be noted that the case of the prosecution as against the accused persons is that the accused persons failed to register the FIR on the complaint of the victim made on the CM Portal and received by them through official channel and therefore, all the accused persons are liable to be punished under Section 166A IPC.
16. In the present case, it is necessary to examine whether the essential ingredients of Section 166A of the IPC stand established against the accused.
17. Section 166A of IPC provides that: -
Whoever, being a public servant--
1. knowingly disobeys any direction of the law which prohibits him from requiring the attendance at any place of any person for the purpose of investigation into an offence or any other, or
2. knowingly disobeys, to the prejudice of any person, any other direction of the law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct such investigation, or
3. fails to record any information given to him under sub-section (1) of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in relation to cognizable offence punishable under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354B, section 370, section 370A, section 376, section 376A, Section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB, section 376E or section 509, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/25/2021 Page No. 12 of 18 RC-8S/2019/2019 Digitally signed CBI vs. Kunwar Bahadur Singh & Ors.
MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2026.03.14
17:05:51 +0530
may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.
18. Section 166A IPC criminalizes the act of a public servant who knowingly disobeys any direction of law requiring him to record information given to him under section 154(1) Cr.P.C. relating to the commission of certain specified offences, including offences punishable under Section 376 IPC. The statutory mandate which the provision seeks to enforce is contained in Section 154(1) of the Cr.P.C., which obligates the officer in charge of a police station to record information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence when such information is given to him.
19. Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C. provides that: -
Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer;
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/25/2021 Page No. 13 of 18 RC-8S/2019/2019 Digitally signed CBI vs. Kunwar Bahadur Singh & Ors. MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.14 17:05:58 +0530 Provided further that--
1. in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person's choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be;
2. the recording of such information shall be video graphed;
3. the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164 as soon as possible.
20. Thus, the foundation for attracting criminal liability under Section 166A IPC is the existence of information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence being given to the officer concerned in the manner contemplated under Section 154(1) Cr.P.C., and the subsequent deliberate failure or refusal on the part of such officer to record the same.
21. In the present case, the evidence on record reveals that the complainant had initially submitted a grievance on the Chief Minister's public grievance portal seeking action regarding the alleged incident. The said grievance was thereafter forwarded through administrative channels to the concerned police authorities 'for conducting enquiry and report', pursuant to which the accused persons/police officers conducted a preliminary __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/25/2021 Page No. 14 of 18 RC-8S/2019/2019 Digitally signed CBI vs. Kunwar Bahadur Singh & Ors.
MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2026.03.14
17:06:04 +0530
enquiry and submitted a report. All the accused persons followed the instructions received from their senior police officials and the CM office as mentioned.
22. The filing of complaint on a CM Portal or similar online grievance platforms cannot be considered legal compliance as per Section 154(1) Cr.P.C., although it may act as an administrative step to trigger police action.
23. However, it is significant to note that no evidence has been brought on record to show that the complainant had firstly approached the accused persons/police officers, the Station House Officer, or the police station concerned with information relating to the alleged offence in terms of Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. The material available on record only indicates that a grievance was lodged at CM Portal, which subsequently came to be marked to the police department for enquiry and report.
24. Furthermore, the victim/PW3 during her cross- examination admitted that she had not filed any complaint in any police station with respect to sexual assault by Kuldeep Singh Sengar before lodging IGRS complaint dt. 17.08.2017 at CM Portal by deposing that "it is correct that we had not filed any complaint in any police station with respect to sexual assault by Kuldeep Singh Sengar before lodging IGRS complaint dt. 17.08.2017 at CM Portal".
25. On the same lines, the mother of victim/PW4 also during her cross-examination admitted the said fact and deposed that "it __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/25/2021 Page No. 15 of 18 RC-8S/2019/2019 Digitally signed by CBI vs. Kunwar Bahadur Singh & Ors. MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.14 17:06:11 +0530 is correct that we had not filed any complaint in any police station with respect to sexual assault by Kuldeep Singh Sengar before lodging IGRS complaint dt. 17.08.2017 at CM Portal".
26. The statutory obligation under Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. arises when information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is given to the officer in charge of a police station, either orally or in writing, requiring the officer to reduce the same into writing and register an FIR. In the absence of such direct information being furnished to the police officer in the manner contemplated by law, the foundational requirement for invoking Section 166A IPC cannot be said to be satisfied.
27. Merely because a grievance was forwarded to the police authorities through an administrative portal and that too only for conducting enquiry and filing report, would not ipso facto amount to the complainant "giving information" to the officer in charge of the police station within the meaning of Section 154(1) Cr.P.C., particularly when the evidence does not establish that the accused officer was personally approached by the complainant or that a complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence was formally presented before the police station concerned.
28. It is true that subsequently an FIR came to be registered and the accused in that case was ultimately convicted for the offence of rape. However, the subsequent registration of the case and the eventual conviction of the accused cannot by itself lead to the conclusion that the accused officer had knowingly __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/25/2021 Page No. 16 of 18 RC-8S/2019/2019 CBI vs. Kunwar Bahadur Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.14 17:06:16 +0530 disobeyed a legal mandate under Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. at the relevant time, especially when the essential prerequisite of information being given to him in the manner contemplated by law remains unproved.
29. Criminal liability under Section 166A IPC being penal in nature must be strictly construed. Unless the prosecution is able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused public servant was directly placed in receipt of information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence and yet deliberately failed to record the same, the offence cannot be said to be made out.
30. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish this foundational requirement. The material on record merely shows that a grievance was lodged at a CM portal and thereafter administratively forwarded to the police authorities for conducting enquiry and filing report, upon which a preliminary enquiry was conducted as per directions. In the considered opinion of this Court, such circumstances, by themselves, do not satisfy the strict ingredients required to attract criminal liability under Section 166A IPC.
CONCLUSION
31. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused Kunwar Bahadur Singh, Dharam Prakash Shukla and Digvijay Singh beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly accused Kunwar Bahadur Singh, Dharam __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/25/2021 Page No. 17 of 18 RC-8S/2019/2019 CBI vs. Kunwar Bahadur Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2026.03.14 17:06:23 +0530 Prakash Shukla and Digvijay Singh are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 166A IPC.
32. Bailbonds of the accused persons on record are hereby considered and accepted u/s 437A Cr.P.C./481 BNSS.
33. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. Digitally signed by MAYANK GOEL MAYANK Date:
GOEL 2026.03.14
17:06:33
+0530
Announced in Open Court (MAYANK GOEL)
on 14th March, 2026 ACJM-02-cum-ACJ
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT
COURTS, NEW DELHI
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/25/2021 Page No. 18 of 18 RC-8S/2019/2019 CBI vs. Kunwar Bahadur Singh & Ors.