Delhi District Court
State vs Parveen on 5 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09 (SOUTH-WEST) DWARKA
COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Parveen
FIR No : 124/2019
U/s : 341/448/506 IPC
P.S. : Jafarpur Kalan
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020213142021
2. Date of commission of offence : 23.07.2019
3. Date of institution of the case : 24.08.2021
4. Name of the complainant : Ramesh Kumar
5. Name of accused, parentage & : Parveen
address S/o Dharamveer
R/o Main Bus Stand,
VPO Dhansa, J. P. Kalan,
Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : 341/448/506 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 05.05.2025
Argued by:- Mr. Jay Aditya, Ld. APP for the State.
Mr. Lalit Kataria, Ld. Counsel for accused.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.05
16:22:43
+0530
FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 1 of 31
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 23.07.2019 at about 03:00 pm at Dhansa Main Bus Stand, Balaji Tent House, Dhansa Village Delhi, accused trespassed in to the shop of the complainant and others and placed his locks on their shops and wrongly restrained complainant namely Rakesh Kumar alongwith Tara Chand, Naresh Kumar, and Charan Singh and threatened them for their life and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 341/448/506 of IPC, for which FIR no.124/2019 was registered at the police station Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused person was filed. The Ld. Predecessor of this court took the cognizance against the accused person and summons were issued to the accused person. On his appearance, copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused person in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, charge under Sections 341/448/506 of IPC was framed against accused on 30.03.2022 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 2 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.05 16:22:49 +0530 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 Ramesh Kumar PW-2 Madan PW-3 Mahesh Prasad @ Billu PW-4 Tara Chand PW-5 Charan Singh PW-6 Naresh Kumar PW-7 Rajiv Kumar Kadyan PW-8 Mange Ram PW-9 Kaptan Singh PW-10 Sunil PW-11 SI Virender Singh PW-12 Khubi Dass DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A Complaint Ex.PW3/A Rent receipts dated 30.07.2020,14.02.2022 and 17.01.2023 Ex.PW4/A Seizure memo qua locks Ex.PW4/B Complaint given by Tara Chand Ex.PW4/C Rent receipts regarding rent paid by Tara Chand Ex.PW5/A Rent receipts regarding rent paid by Charan Singh Ex.PW6/A Rent receipts regarding rent paid by Naresh Kumar Ex.PW6/B Complaint given by Naresh Kumar against accused Ex.PW7/A Notice u/S 91A Cr. P. C. to Managing Director/ AGM Delhi State co-operative Bank Ex.PW7/B Reply to said notice Ex.PW8/A Statement of Mange Ram Ex.PW10/A Statement of Sunil Ex.PW11/1 DD no.11A Ex.PW11/2 Tehrir Ex.PW11/3 Site plan Ex.PW11/4 Notice u/S 91 Cr. P. C. to Co-operative Digitally signed FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 3 of 31 by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.05 16:22:54 +0530 Society Ex.PW11/5 Statement of Rohtas Ex.PW11/6 Statement of Zile Singh Ex.PW11/7 Statement of Mukesh Ex.PW11/8 Statement of Khubi Dass Ex.PW11/9 Complaint given by Charan Singh against accused Ex.PW11/10 Complaint given by Madan Kumar against accused Ex.PW11/11 Statement of accused Praveen Kumar Ex.PW11/12 Arrest memo Ex.PW11/13 Personal search memo Ex.PW11/14 Disclosure statement ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex.A1 FIR no.124/2019 alongwith Certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act
4. Prosecution examined the following witnesses and the same are as follows:
PW1 Ramesh Kumar (complainant) deposed that he could read and write Hindi but he was blind and he could read from 2 feet away. He stated that as per his knowledge, the society have 11 shops, he had mentioned in his complaint about all the shops and the rent was being deposited at Co-operative society, Delhi State Co-operative Bank, Najafgarh. He stated that on 23.07.2019, son of Dharne locked the door of all the shops by lock and he was running the shop at the said place since 1985. He stated that when he visited the shop then he came to know that the shop had been locked and thereafter, he called at 100 number. He stated that he went to the Police Station and FIR got lodged and he had given his statement to Police officer regarding his complaint Ex.PW1/A. As PW1 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein he stated that he was carrying the shop of tent since 1988 at Dhansa Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 4 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.05 16:22:59 +0530 village, main bus stand, Delhi and the shop was made by cooperative society. He stated that said house was made by cooperative society having 6 shops of including him, Sh. Madan S/o Shri Chand, Sh. Tara Chand S/o Sh. Pokar, Sh. Billu, S/o Sh. Hukum Singh, Sh. Charan Singh, S/o Sh. Shyam Lal and Sh. Naresh S/o Sh. Ram Chndra. He stated that he came to know through Naresh that Parveen S/o Sh. Dharamveer, Village Dharne had locked all the said shops and he along with other shopkeepers requested Parveen to open the locks but he did not open the locks of the shop. He stated that Parveen also stated that the shops and land belonged to him and he did not allow them to move towards their shops and also threatened them that if anybody would open the lock he would kill him. He stated that Parveen had locked the said shop with intention to dispossess them and grab the same. In the cross-examination, he stated that he was born in 1965 in Village Dhansa and behind the said shop, there was a land of Sh. Shayo Ram. He stated that land of said shops were within the Lal Dora of the village and he had not given any invoice book of shop of said tent at the said place. He stated that an electric meter was installed in the name of Parveen but he did not know the name of public persons from whom IO had inquired. He stated that he had not seen Parveen when the lock was put on the alleged shop and he did not know the time when lock was put at the said alleged shop and he was not present at the spot when the lock was put by any person.
5. PW2 Madan deposed that on 23.17.2019, Parveen had put lock on his shop of grocery and he came to know that Parveen had locked his shop through Sh. Ramesh but he did not remember his father's name. He stated that name of Shopkeepers were Sh. Tara Chand, Sh. Billo, Sh. Charan Singh, Sh. Ramchander. Sh.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 5 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.05 16:23:04 +0530 Ramesh and when they all went to their shops, Parveen was present there and said that the shops and land belonged to him. He stated that Parveen threatened him to go from there and thereafter, they all made complaint to the police and police opened the locks of the shops , thereafter, he was running the said shop and he had been running the shop since 1970. As PW2 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein he stated that police had recorded his statement and the same was read over to him but he did not remember the statement Mark M-1. He stated that shops were made by cooperative society and the said house was made by cooperative society having 6 shops. He stated that Parveen also stated that the shops and land belonged to him and Parveen did not allow them to move towards their shops and threatened them if anybody would open the lock he would kill him. He stated that Parveen had locked the suit shop with intention to dispossess them and grab the same. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not know in whose name the land of the said shop was registered in revenue record and as per his knowledge, when he got the shop in the said land it was registered in the name of society in land revenue record. He stated that he had not made any written complaint to the police in the said case and police had not seized the locks in his presence. He stated that he had not given any rent agreement of the said shop to the police officer and when the lock was put on the shops he was not present there and he had not seen who had put lock on the said shop. He stated thatre was an electric meter in the name of Parveen and the name of the grandfather of Parveen was Sh. Shayo Ram. He stated that he did not have any personal knowledge that the said land was Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 6 of 31 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.05 16:23:09 +0530 registered in the name of Sh. Shayo Ram in land revenue record. He stated that Police had recorded the statement of villager but he did not remember his name. He stated that Police had taken the photographs of the shop in his presence and he did not know whether IO had placed the same in the file or not on the same date of complaint. He stated that police officials had not prepared any site plan in his presence and he had given the photograph of his shop to the police officials stating that this was the shop which he ran but no such photograph was on record. He stated that police officials did not click any photograph of the shop in question in his presence.
6. PW3 Mahesh Prasad @ Billu deposed that he was running an electric shop at main bus stand, village Dhansa which had been run by him on rent since last about 40 years. He stated that he gave the rent for the said shop to a bank, the name of which he did not know as he was illiterate person. He stated that there were about 7 to 8 shops at the spot and those shops were run by Madan, Tara, Lala, Shanu, Lillu Pandit @ Ramesh and himself. He stated that on 23rd day of unknown month, prior to crona period, their said shops were sealed by Praveen and the said locks were later on removed by the accused upon the directions of the police officials after about 3 to 4 days and police had interrogated him regarding the matter. As PW3 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein he stated that he did not know whether the said shops were constructed by Cooperative Society. He stated that he could not admit or deny whether two of these shops were being run by Charan Singh S/o Shyam and Naresh S/o Ram Chander. He stated that they paid the rent of those shops at Cooperative Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 7 of 31 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.05 16:23:15 +0530 Society, Daryia Ganj, Janter Manter and Najafgarh and they had the receipts regarding the said paid rent. He stated that when they asked the accused Praveen to remove his lock from the shops, he replied that the said shops belonged to him and refused to remove the lock. He stated that accused Praveen had stopped their way by saying that they should not go towards their shop and police clicked some photographs of the shops and removed the locks put by the accused on the shops and seized the same. He stated that he had submitted the photocopy of the rent receipt which were seized by the police officials and he could bring on record the original rent receipts paid by him. He had brought the rent receipts dated 30.07.2020, 14.02.2022, 17.01.2023 Ex.PW3/A (colly). In the cross-examination, he stated that no shop number was allotted to him by the co-operative society. He stated that he had not seen who put lock on his shop and he did not call on 100 number while he saw his shop was locked by someone. He stated that he did not give any written complaint to PS regarding lock put on his shop and he did not have any rent agreement which was executed between him and the abovesaid society. He stated that he did not have any rent agreement before issuance of rent receipts Ex.PW3/A (colly) and he did not know who was the owner of land nearby the said shop. He stated that no shop number and monthly rent was mentioned on the said rent receipts and the name of the person, who received the rent was not mentioned on the receipts.
7. PW4 Tara Chand deposed that he run a barbar shop at main bus stand, village Dhansa which had been run by him on rent since last about 50 years. He stated that he used to give the rent for the said shop to cooperative society but now he paid the rent to cooperative bank. He stated that there were 6 shops at the spot Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 8 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.05 16:23:21 +0530 and the same were run by Madan, Lillu Pandit @ Ramesh, Billu, Charan Singh S/o Shyam Lal, Naresh and himself. He stated that on 23.07.2019, their said shops were sealed/locked by accused Praveen and the said locks were later on removed by the accused upon the directions of the police officials on 27.07.2019. He stated that police had interrogated him regarding the matter and he handed over to the police the copy of the receipts. He stated that he had the rent receipts of the last 50 years and the locks were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. He stated that he had also given a complaint against the accused Ex.PW4/B and on 27.07.2019, the IO had arrested the accused Parveen. The witness had brought the requisite rent receipts in original Ex.PW4/C (colly). In the cross-examination, he stated that he was about 15/17 years old when the shop in question came in his possession through his brother late Sh. Satyanarain. He stated that he would have to check the documents to verify the documents which was prepared at that time vide which he came into possession of the shop in question on rent. He stated that he knew the father of accused Parveen prior to the incident in question but he did not know whether the land in question belonged to the father of the accused Parveen. He stated that he did not remember whether any rent agreement was prepared between the society and him qua the property in question and the receipts produced by him does not bear the shop number and address on the same. He stated that he could not produce the original rent agreement and he did not remember if any rent agreement was executed between his brother Sh. Sat Narain and co-operative society. He stated that no shop number was mentioned on the original rent receipts which were already exhibited and no electricity meter was installed in his brother's name when the shop was rented out. He Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 9 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.05 16:23:26 +0530 stated that IO had taken his photograph alongwith the shop. He stated that he had shown rent receipts of the shop to the IO. He stated that at the back side of the shop, there was house of Parveen and the other three sides were bounded by public road. He stated that he was not present at the shop when Parveen had locked the shop after pushing his son outside the shop. He stated that IO had not recorded statement of his son Dilawar and he was not present at the time of incident and he was hearsay witness, which was told by other person. He stated that he did not have any other document to show that he was the tenant in the said shop except the rent receipts. He stated that he did not approach the society members for renewal and making a new rent agreement between them. He stated that he did not make any written complaint against accused regarding the said incident and he again said, he had signed one written complaint but he did not read the contents of the said complaint before signing the same.
8. PW5 SI Charan Singh deposed that he was running a shop at Main Bus Stand, Village Dhansa which had been run by him since last 50 years. He stated that the shop was rented by Co- operative Society, Jantar Mantar, Dariya Ganj, and Najafgarh, Delhi to him and on 23.07.2019, his shop was closed and his neighbor shopkeeper informed him that Praveen locked his shop and said that the land was belonged to him and on 29.07.2019, the said locks were opened by the police. As PW5 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross- examination, wherein he stated that when he went to his home for lunch, then his neighbor shopkeeper Naresh informed him that Praveen locked his shop thereafter, he came then Praveen told that the land belonged to him and he occupied his land. He stated Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 10 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.05 16:23:31 +0530 that he did not know whether the said shops were constructed by Cooperative Bank and they paid the rent of the shop to Cooperative Bank, Daryia Ganj, Janter Manter and Najafgarh. He stated that he had the receipts regarding the said paid rent and when they asked the accused Praveen to remove his lock from the shops, he replied that the said shops belonged to him and refused to remove the lock. However, the police did not click photographs of the shops. He stated that police removed the locks put by the accused on the shops and seized the same and he had submitted the photocopy of the rent receipt which were seized by the police officials. In the cross-examination, he stated that he had no rent agreement regarding the said shop and he had receipts showcasing that he was in possession / running the said shop after paying the requisite charges to Dhansa Co-operative Society Ex.PW5/A. He stated that the exact address of the tenancy was not mentioned upon the receipt and he further clarified that the receipt bears the name of Shyam Lal Dukandar and the said Shyam Lal was his late father. He stated that his late father did not hand over him any other document apart from abovesaid receipt to show that the said shop was being run by him as a tenant. He stated that he did not have any other document to show that he was still continuing as a tenant and he still paid the fees/ charge every six months and he had the receipts to show that he was still paying / depositing an amount of Rs.100/- per month as the rental charges. He stated that the shops as situated at the spot are being surrounded by three sides by the ancestral property owned by the accused and his family. He stated that the incident in question did not happen in front of him and he came to know about the same when he came back after lunch, he saw all the six shops were being locked with new Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 11 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.05 16:23:36 +0530 locks. He stated that he did not move any written complaint regarding the change of his locks at the shop to the police.
9. PW6 Naresh Kumar deposed that he run a shop at main bus stand village Dhansa since last 50 to 53 years and the above said shop was rented by cooperative society Jantar Mantar, Dariya Ganj. He stated that on 23.07.2019 at about 08:00 pm, he closed his shop and went to his house and on next day, when he reached at his shop at about 07:00 am, he saw that his shop was locked by someone with another lock. He further stated that he asked other shopkeepers who locked his shop and his neighbours told him that Praveen locked his shop and in the meanwhile, Praveen also reached at the spot and all shopkeepers requested accused Praveen to remove locks from their shops but Praveen denied the same and when he and other shopkeepers tried to open the their shop accused Praveen restrained him and other shopkeepers. He further stated that his family members were also reached at the shop and his wife made at 100 number call and after sometime PCR van reached at the spot and police officials recorded statement of Ramesh Kumar in his presence. He further stated that IO prepared site plan at the instance of Ramesh in his presence and police officials removed the locks from their shop. He further stated that he deposited the rent for the said shop to Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd. from the date of allotment to till date and he gave photocopy of above said rent deposition receipt to the IO during investigation Ex.PW6/A (colly) and he also gave his complaint to SHO Ex.PW6/B. In the cross- examination, he stated that he did not know who was the owner of the land where the shops were constructed. He stated that the family of accused Praveen was residing in his neighbourhood but he did not remember when his father bought above said house Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 12 of 31 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.05 16:23:42 +0530 where he live with his family. He further stated that there were no CCTV camera around the shops and his father was running the shop and no rent agreement execute between his father and cooperative society. He further stated that he did not ask his father when the above said shops were constructed and he and his father were not present when accused Praveen put his lock on his shop. He further stated that no electricity meter installed in the name of his father and the same was installed in the name of Cooperative Society and same was disconnected by the electricity department but he did not remember the date on which it was disconnected. He further stated that he did not know whether police verification of tenancy of his father was done by the police or not and he did not know whether any rent agreement was execute between his father and Delhi cooperative society for the period of 2001 to 2023. He further stated that he had no personal knowledge about above said receipts and he never deposited the above said rent and no photographs were clicked by the police officials in his presence and his complaint was not in his handwriting someone wrote it on his instructions.
10. PW7 Rajiv Kumar Kadyan deposed that on 25.07.2019, ASI Virender Singh gave notice u/S 91A Cr. P. C. to managing Director/AGM Delhi State Co-operative Bank and he received the same Ex.PW7/A and he gave reply to the said notice u/s 91A Cr. P. C. on 13.11.2019 with reference no.5609 to SHO PS J. P. Kalna Ex.PW7/B. He stated that ASI Virender Singh gave receipts (Dhansa Co-operative multiple purpose (M/P) Society Limited) for verification and he verified the said receipts Ex.PW4/C (colly) and Ex.PW6/A (colly). He further stated that the abovesaid Dhansa Co-operative M/P Society was defaulter of Delhi State Co-operative Bank Limited and the person whose Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 13 of 31 ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.05 16:23:46 +0530 name was mentioned on the said receipts were the tenants and they were paying rent towards recovery of bank. Mr. Ramesh and Mrs. Saroj also started paying rent to bank from July 2019. In the cross-examination, he stated that no information and direction to collect the rent on behalf of Dhansa Co-operative M/P Society was received. He stated that he did not know whether any rent agreement was executed between Dhansa Co-operative M/P Society and the abovesaid persons and no shop number was mentioned on the said receipts. He further stated that it was issued in the name of Dhansa Co-operative M/P Society and depositor name was also mentioned on the bottom of the said receipts.
11. PW8 Mange Ram deposed that in the year 1981, he was residing as a tenant in the room which was constructed by Co-operative Society at Dhansa Village and he left the abovesaid premises in the year 1983-1984. He stated that the villagers namely Tara, Madan, Billoo, Ramesh and Charan Singh were also running a shop which was constructed by Co-operative Society and they paid their rent to Co-operative Society. He further stated that during investigation, IO also recorded his statement Ex.PW8/A and he had no personal knowledge about the present case and the incident of the present case was not happened in his presence. In the cross-examination, he stated that no employee from Co- operative society visited at the abovesaid shop for obtaining the rent in his presence. He stated that one of villager of Dhansa Village namely Chattar Singh used to collect rent from the abovesaid tenants.
12. PW9 Kaptan Singh deposed that he knew Madan Lal, Tara, Billoo, Ramesh, Naresh and Charan Singh and they all running Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 14 of 31 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.05 16:23:51 +0530 the shop which were constructed by Co-operative Society in their village Dhansa. He stated that he knew the abovesaid persons and they were the tenant in the abovesaid shops and he had no personal knowledge about the present case. He further stated that the incident of the present case was not happened in his presence and he knew accused Praveen Kumar as he was also belonged to his village.
13. PW10 Sunil deposed that he was running a shop in the name and style of Gupta General Store and Co-operative Society built shops in Dhansa Village which were rented to Madan, Ramesh, Billoo, Naresh and other other persons. He stated that the abovesaid persons paid their rent to Co-operative Society and IO recorded his statement during investigation Ex.PW10/A. In the cross-examination, he stated that said persons did not pay rent to Co-operative Society in his presence and he did not know whether any document was executed between the Co-operative Society and abovesaid persons. He further stated that the said shops were constructed on the land (ancestral property) of accused Parveen but he did not know whether the abovesaid tenants gave false complaint against accused Parveen for grabbing the said shops.
14. PW11 SI Virender Singh deposed that on 24.07.2019, he received DD no.011A Ex.PW11/1 and thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Ravinder went to the spot where they met with complainant Ramesh and some other persons who gathered there. He stated that complainant Ramesh and other persons shared whole incident with him and thereafter, he made a call to SHO and he left the spot and reached at the PS. He further stated that on 27.07.2019, he again reached at the spot and recorded statement Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 15 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.05 16:23:57 +0530 of complainant, on the basis of which, he prepared tehrir Ex.PW11/2 and got the FIR registered through Ct. Ravinder. He further stated that during investigation, he prepared site plan at the instance of Ramesh Ex.PW11/3 and seized six locks from the spot. He further stated that complainant and other shopkeepers handed over to him rent receipts and he verified the same from Co-operative Society, Dariyaganj and Parliament. He further stated that he also served notice u/S 91 Cr. P. C. to Co-operative Society, Old Parliament Road Ex.PW11/4 and also served notice u/S 91 Cr. P. C. to Head Office (Managing Director) Dariyaganj and received reply for the same. He further stated that he also recorded statement of Rohtas, Zile Singh, Mukesh, Khubi Dass Ex.PW11/5 to Ex.PW11/8 and also recorded the statement of Mange Ram, Kaptan Singh, Sunil. He further stated that the tenants of the abovesaid shops namely Charan Singh and Madan Kumar came at PS and gave complaint to the SHO Ex.PW11/9 and Ex.PW11/10. He further stated that other shopkeepers Tara Chand and Naresh also gave complaint accused in the name of SHO and accused Praveen also gave statement to SHO Ex.PW11/11. He further stated that he arrested accused at PS vide arrest memo Ex.PW11/12, conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex.PW11/13 and he also recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW11/14. He further stated that he released the accused as the offence was bailable in nature after furnishing bail bonds. The witness correctly identified the accused present in the court. He also recorded statements of witnesses u/S 161 Cr. P.C. and after completion of investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet before the concerned court. In the cross-examination, he stated that when he reached at the spot on 24.07.2019, no broken locks were found at the spot and he had Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 16 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.05 16:24:02 +0530 not seized any lock on 24.07.2019. He stated that he clicked the photographs of the spot, shops and the doors of the shops and he placed the said photographs on the judicial file. He further stated that no CCTV camera was found installed at the spot and he did not record statement of authorized officials of Co-operative Societies (Daryaganj and Old Court Road, Parliament Street), who verified the abovesaid receipts and gave reply to him of his notice u/S 91 Cr. P. C. He further stated that the abovesaid tenants or the shopkeepers failed to produce any rent agreement which were executed between them and Co-operative Societies and they only produced rent receipts. He further stated that official of Co-operative Society Daryaganj did not produce or hand over to him any document which shows that Co-operative Society handed over possession of the abovesaid shops to the shopkeepers as a tenant. He further stated that official of Co- operative Society failed to produce any document which shows that abovesaid shops were constructed on the land of co- operative society and Co-operative Society was legally authorized to give it to shopkeepers on rent. He further stated that the name of shop was not mentioned on the abovesaid rent receipts and he was not the eye-witness of the incident.
15. PW12 Khubi Dass deposed that Co-operative Society built up some shops at Dhansa Bus Stand and Tara Chand, Billo, Madan, Charan Singh and Naresh were using the said shops as a tenant.
In the cross-examination, he stated that he was not the eye- witness of the incident and he was not present there at the time of incident. He stated that he reached at the spot at about 06:00 to 07:00 pm on 24.07.2019 and the abovesaid incident was shared with him by the villagers and public person who were gathered there. He further stated that the abovesaid land on which the said Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 17 of 31 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.05 16:24:08 +0530 shops were constructed belongs to accused Praveen (ancestral property).
16. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, remaining in the prosecution list were dropped and the formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with. No other PW was left to be examined, hence, P.E was closed.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
17. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused person was recorded on 10.09.2024 without oath under section 281 r/w 313 Cr.PC, wherein he had stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case.
He further stated that he was the owner of the shops in question and that complainant alongwith other witnesses had filed the false case against him. He further stated that he did not want to lead defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS
18. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
19. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offences are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 18 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.05 16:24:14 +0530 has proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused person be punished for the said offences.
20. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused person has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel for accused person further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused person be acquitted for the said offences.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
21. Section 339 IPC defines- Wrongful Restraint as, whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person. Section 341 IPC provides for the punishment for wrongful restraint.
22. Section 448 defines - Punishment for house-trespass - Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
23. Section 506 defines - Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 19 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.05 16:24:19 +0530 destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
24. The allegations levelled against accused are segregated into two parts:
The first allegation against the accused is that he had criminally trespassed into the shops of the complainant and other shopkeepers and wrongfully restrained them for which accused is charged for offence under Section 448/341 IPC. The second allegation against the accused is that he had criminally intimidated complainant and other shopkeepers and committed offence under Section 506 IPC.
25. Let us deal with the first set of allegations against accused u/S 448/341 IPC. The provision of 448 IPC provides as under:
Section 448 IPC which reads as follows:
Whoever commits house trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 442 IPC defines house trespass as follows:
Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel, used as a human dwelling, or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit "house trespass".
Explanation- The introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser's body is entering sufficient to constitute house- trespass.
Section 441 IPC defines criminal trespass as under:Digitally signed by ABHINAV
FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 20 of 31 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.05 16:24:23 +0530 Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains therewith intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass".
26. Thus, it is necessary for an offence punishable u/s 448 IPC that essential ingredients of criminal trespass and house trespass must be fulfilled. For commission of criminal trespass three essential ingredients have to be fulfilled which are as follows:
(1) Entry into or upon property in possession of another.
(2) If such entry is lawful then unlawfully remaining upon such property.
(3) Such entry or unlawful remaining must be with intent:
(i) to commit of offence or
(ii) to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession of the property.
27. Thus, it is important that the property trespassed must be in actual possession of some person other than the alleged trespasser. It is necessary for the prosecution to prove the exclusive possession of the complainant upon the property trespassed. It is also settled law that the question of title is not to be raised on a plea of possession as the offence is against possession and not against ownership of property.
Furthermore, it is to be noted that a simple and even unintentional entry upon another's land constitutes injuria, and is actionable. But a civil suit lies for this, not a criminal prosecution. But if entry is affected with the mens rea mentioned in Sec. 441, then alone a criminal prosecution will lie. In criminal trespass, intention to commit an offence is an essential Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 21 of 31 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.05 16:24:29 +0530 ingredient. The causing of an offence, intimidation, etc. must be the main aim of the entry. Therefore, mere occupation, even if it is illegal, without such intent, cannot amount to criminal trespass as held in Kanwal Sood v Nawal Kishore, 1983 CrLJ 173 (SC). It is important to note that the use of criminal force is not a necessary ingredient. Further, knowledge of likelihood, in place of intention, will not make an offence under Sec. 441.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
28. The first ingredient which needs to be proved to prove an offence u/s 448 IPC is that the accused committed Criminal Trespass, i.e., entry into or upon property in possession of another with intention to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession.
29. In the instance case, prosecution examined complainant Ramesh Kumar who deposed as PW1 and stated that in his testimony that he runs a tent shop since 1988 and that rent was deposited by him at Co-operative Society, Delhi State Co-operative Bank, Najafgarh. PW1 further stated that on 23.07.2019, son of Dharne locked the door of his shop by another lock alongwith all other shops at the said place. PW1 further stated that when he visited his shop, he came to know that his shop was locked and thereafter, he called at 100 number. PW1 identified his signatures on his complaint Ex.PW1/A as recorded by the police.
30. As the complainant failed to disclose all material facts, Ld. APP was granted permission to cross-examine him and in the said cross-examination by Ld. APP, PW1 further admitted that the said shop was made by Cooperative Society and he was running his shop on rent. He further admitted that the said house was Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 22 of 31 AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.05 16:24:33 +0530 made by Cooperative Society having 06 shops including his, Madan, Tara Chand, Billu, Charan Singh and Naresh. He further admitted that he came to know that all the said shops were being locked through Naresh. He further stated that he along with other shopkeepers requested accused Parveen to open the locks of the said shops but he did not open the same stating that the shops and land belonged to him and thereafter he did not allow all the shop keepers to move towards their shops. In his cross-examination, PW1 admitted that the electric meter was installed at the said place was in the name of Parveen and that he was not aware about the details of the land adjoining the house and neighborhood. PW1 further admitted that he did not have any invoice book of his tent shop. Interestingly, PW1 further admitted in his cross-examination that he had not seen accused Praveen when the lock was being put on the alleged shop and he was not present at the spot when the lock was put by other person.
31. Before proceeding further to evaluate the testimony of PW1 with other prosecution witness, it is relevant to see as to how the criminal law was set into motion in the present case. As per PW11 SI Virender who stated that on the date of incident, he received DD no.11A Ex.PW11/1 whereafter he alongwith Ct. Ravinder went to the spot where they met complainant Ramesh alongwith other persons who had gathered there. Perusal of the GD no.11A reveals that information was received through PCR call that Dhansa Balaji Tent House ki dukano pe tala laga rakha hai.
PW11 further stated that on 27.07.2019 i.e. 3-4 days after the alleged reporting of the matter, he again reached at the spot Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 23 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.05 16:24:38 +0530 and recorded statement of complainant Ex.PW11/2 whereafter the FIR in the present matter was registered. Therefore, it is clear that the statement of complainant was recorded 3 days after the reporting the matter to the investigating agency. Also, nothing has been brought on record by the complainant to show whether he had sought nay other civil remedies to recover the possession of his shop.
32. Further prosecution examined other witnesses to establish the factum that the shops at the spot were being wrongfully trespassed by the accused and for the same, prosecution examined the following witnesses i.e. PW2 Madan, PW3 Mahesh, PW4 Tara Chand, PW5 Charan Singh and PW6 Naresh Kumar. Briefly all the PWs i.e. PW2 to PW6 stated that they run shops at the said spot.
33. PW2 stated that he runs a shop of grocery and that he came to know that accused had locked his shop through one Ramesh. Similarly, PW3 stated that he runs an electric shop at the spot and he used to give rent to the said shop to a bank. Further, PW4 stated that he was running a shop of barber at the spot by giving rent to cooperative society. Also, PW5 stated that he runs a shop from the spot being taken on rent from Cooperative Society and that he was informed by his neighbor shopkeepers that accused had locked his shop stating that shop belonged to him. Similarly, PW6 stated that he was running a shop since last many years by paying rent to Cooperative Society and on 24.07.2019 when he reached at his shop at about 07:00 am, he saw his shop was locked by someone with another lock and when he asked other shopkeepers they told him that accused Praveen had locked his shop. All PW2 to PW6 correctly identified accused and they all Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV Date:
AHLAWAT FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 24 of 31 2025.05.05 16:24:43 +0530 stated that when they found that their shops were being locked by other lock, accused Praveen was present there and they requested him to remove his locks but he restrained them and did not remove his locks. Perusal of the cross-examination of all PW2 to PW6 reveals that they all failed to produce rent agreement of the said shops and they all admitted in their cross-examination that they had not seen accused praveen putting lock on their shops.
34. As all PW1 to PW6 examined by prosecution stating to be the persons running their shops which were allegedly locked by accused stating that he was the owner of said shops and land and all the PWs have stated that they had taken the said shops on rent by paying rent to Delhi Cooperative Bank. Therefore, it is relevant to examine the person/authority receiving the rent from the said PW1 to PW6.
Prosecution examined PW7 Rajiv Kumar who appeared on behalf of Delhi State Co-operative Bank Limited who submitted that the Cooperative Bank received a notice from IO thereafter they submitted their reply Ex.PW7/B. PW7 further stated that IO gave receipts Ex.PW4/C (colly) and Ex.PW6/A (colly) for verification and thereafter, they verified the same. PW7 stated that Dhansa Cooperative M/P Society was defaulter of Delhi State Co-operative Bank Limited and the person whose name was mentioned on the said receipts were the tenants and they were paying rent towards recovery of bank.
35. Perusal of reply as submitted by PW7 Ex.PW7/B reveals that receipts of PW2 Madan, PW5 Charan Singh and PW4 Tek Chand as enclosed with the notice were found to be genuine. The reply further stated that Dhansa Cooperative Society was defaulter of Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 25 of 31 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.05 16:24:48 +0530 the bank and that the said tenants were paying rent since decades towards bank recovery amount.
36. Perusal of the said rent receipt Ex.PW4/C reveals that these are three receipts dated 04.12.2989, 07.08.1989 and 03.02.1989 for the deposit of cash amount as received by Cooperative Bank. The said receipt Ex.PW4/C does not clearly mention anywhere that these were rent receipts and it only mentions certain payments made in the months of the year 1989. Neither the said receipts mention the names of tenants or the address/ shop number of the tenant who were submitting or paying the rent. Ex.PW4/C (colly) are total 25 receipts spanning from 180-1991, 1993, 1994, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2017 and 2018. The said receipts do not clearly establish whether rent for the entire above said year were being paid and it is not discernible if it is paid for a particular shop. Similarly, receipts Ex.PW6/A which are photocopies of multiple receipts i.e. total 39 in number, however, even the said receipts does not mention the names of tenants, the address of tenant and neither the same mentions clearly that these receipts pertains to the shops in question.
37. As admitted by PW1 to PW6 that they have no rent agreement executed between them and Cooperative Society. There is nothing on record as per the prosecution case to establish that these witnesses were tenant at the said shops. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs that even the rent receipts as tendered in evidence does not connect the said PWs with the Cooperative Bank establishing that the said rent was paid for the shops as mentioned by the PWs in their testimony. The said receipt only records the amount being made in favour of Dhansa Cooperative Society. It does not establish the factum of being the receipts of Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date: AHLAWAT 2025.05.05 FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 26 of 31 16:24:55 +0530 rent being paid by the PW1 to PW6 being tenant in possession of the shops in question.
38. Furthermore, as stated by PW7 that Dhansa Cooperative M/P Society was defaulter of Delhi Cooperative State Bank Limited, however, no such record was brought on record apart from mere oral submissions. All the shopkeeper along with complainant examined in prosecution evidence i.e. PW1 to PW6 have not stated the said fact that they were making payment in the Delhi State Cooperative Bank for the payment of rent to Dhansa Cooperative Society. Interestingly, all PW1 to PW6 have not even mentioned the Cooperative Society as Dhansa Cooperative Society. Accordingly, testimony of all these witnesses stated to be the shopkeepers are unable to establish their possession being tenant of the shops in question. Other witnesses PW8 and PW9 have only stated in their testimony that PW1 to PW6 were running shops at the said place, however, in the absence of any documentary proof and other material, mere submission by PW8 and PW9 does not support or establish the version of PW1 to PW6 that they were running their shops at the spot in question.
39. Furthermore, it needs to be specifically highlighted that IO PW11 had served notice to Cooperative Society, Old Parliament Road Ex.PW11/4 seeking details of the ownership of society and al the other relevant documents of the society qua the transaction with Dhansa Cooperative M/P Society Limited. It is evident that the application Ex.PW11/4 as moved by the IO was not replied by the concerned Registrar Cooperative Society. IO has not explained the reason for non-procuring of reply to the said application. Furthermore, IO in his cross-examination stated that official of Cooperative Society, Daryaganj, Delhi did not produce Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 27 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.05 16:25:01 +0530 or hand over to him any document to show that Cooperative Society handed over the possession of shops in question to the shopkeepers as tenant. IO further stated in his cross-examination that the officials of Cooperative Society also failed to produce any document to showcasing that the shops in question were constructed on the land of Cooperative Society and that Cooperative Society was legally authorized to give the said shops on rent. Thereby it is clear that no document was procured during the course of investigation to establish the fact that the receipt as issued by Delhi Cooperative Bank Limited was issued as payment receipt of rent nor there is any document on record as procured during investigation establishing the fact that PW1 to PW6 were inducted as tenants by the Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited as tenants. Thereby there is no material on record to substantiate the version of PW1 to PW6 that they were in a possession of the shops in question. The possession of PW1 to PW6 is not established beyond reasonable doubt. The ingredients of Section 448 IPC are not made out by the prosecution evidence.
40. Furthermore, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the aspect of the prosecution witness being tenant being in possession of the shops in question is not satisfactorily proved, accordingly, the version of the PWs that they were being restrained by accused person from their shops is also not established. In any case, PW1 to 6 have not categorically stated that accused person has restrained them from their shops. Alos, no separate civil suits have been preferred by the said PWs to obtain the possession of their shops. This Court is of the view that prosecution could not establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and in these circumstances, it is not safe to convict accused for offence under Digitally signed FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 28 of 31 by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.05 16:25:07 +0530 Section 341 IPC and accused is entitle to benefit of doubt, for the offences punishable under Section 341/34 IPC.
41. The second set of allegations against the accused revolves around commission of offences u/s 506/34 IPC.
Following are the essentials of the offence of Criminal Intimidation as defined under section 503 IPC:-
a. It must be a positive act of causing threat to a person; b. It must be directed towards his person, property or reputation; c. It must be directed towards the person or reputation or property of anyone in whom the victim is interested; d. It must be done with the intention of causing alarm to such a person; or e. It must cause him to do something which he is not legally bound to do or refrain him from doing something which he is legally bound to do.
42. Let this court examine the fact whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons u/s 506 IPC or not. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, mere words do not constitute an offence u/s 506 IPC against accused and there should be evidence to show that acts, gesture or words of the accused have caused alarm to the complainant to prove an offence u/s 506 IPC against her. Reliance in this regard, can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court on section 506 IPC in Manik Taneja & Anr. vs State of Karnataka & Anr, (2015) 7 SCC 423. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: -
"It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of 'Criminal intimidation'. The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 29 of 31 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.05 16:25:12 +0530 application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant.'
43. In the present case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 for proving the offence under Section 506 IPC. PW1 had stated in his testimony that accused had threatened him that if anybody open the lock, he would kill them. Similarly PW2 stated that accused threatened him from going towards the shops in question. Nothing was uttered by PW3, PW4 and PW5 regarding any kind of criminal intimidation made by accused. In the present case as discussed above, no evidence or material has been brought by the prosecution to establish the possession of PW1 to PW6 as tenant of the shop in question. It is their version that they found out that accused Parveen had put his locks on the shops in question whereafter he had threatened all the shopkeepers who were trying to open the locks affixed by him. As already discussed above, the prosecution evidence could not establish their exclusive possession on the shops in question thereby any threat if made by accused could not be stated to be directed to the PWs qua the shops in question.
44. Apart from the bald statement, there is nothing to show complainant was alarmed or that accused persons gave those statements with such intentions. In the opinion of this court, the prosecution has failed to prove its case u/s 506 IPC as there is nothing on record to suggest that threat extended to the complainant has caused any alarm to her and due to the alleged threat, she was alarmed to such an extent that she was not able to carry out her daily life. Thus, in the absence of any evidence to the effect that no alarm has been caused to the complainant due to the threat extended by the accused, no offence u/s 506 IPC is Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 30 of 31 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.05 16:25:18 +0530 made out against the accused persons, and are therefore, acquitted for the offence u/s 506 IPC.
45. Before, parting with the matter, it needs to mentioned that if an investigation is demonstrably ineffective or incomplete, the prosecution's case is weakened at its core. Without a thorough and lawful investigation, the prosecution is unlikely to succeed, as the court cannot convict on the basis of incomplete, unreliable, or insufficient evidence. This principle safeguards the rights of the accused and upholds the integrity of the criminal justice system.
Conclusion
46. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the prosecution evidence, both oral and documentary, including the surrounding circumstances leads to the only conclusion that prosecution suffers from serious infirmities and thereby leading to irresistible conclusion that accused person is entitled to benefit of doubt. Since prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused persons and accused Parveen s/o Dharamveer is held not guilty and is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 341/448/506 IPC.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT on 05.05.2025 in the presence AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.05 of the accused person. 16:25:25 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/05.05.2025 This judgment contains 31 pages and each page has been signed Digitally signed ABHINAV by ABHINAV by me. AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date: 2025.05.05 16:25:33 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/05.05.2025 FIR No.124/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Parveen Page 31 of 31