Delhi District Court
State vs Deepak Sharma on 3 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-03, EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 774/15
Police Station Gazipur
Unique Case ID No. 959/2017
Title State Vs. Deepak Sharma
Name of complainant Sh. Ram Bhaj Goyal.
Name of accused Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Bhupendra Nath
R/o 47-B, Pocket A-3, M.V-III, Delhi.
Date of institution of challan 25.01.2017
Date of Final arguments 10.11.2025
Date of pronouncement 03.12.2025.
Offence complained of Under Section 384/506 IPC
Offence charged with Under Section 384 IPC
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order Acquitted
JUDGMENT
Digitally signed by BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:-
SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.12.03 18:12:19 +0530 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh page 1 of 20
01. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the case of the prosecution against accused Deepak Sharma for offences under section 384 IPC.
02. The present case arises out of complaint Ex PW 1/A wherein the complainant stated that he was running the fair price shop of Sh. Madan Lal Satpal where he was working as salesman on the said shop, situated at B-49, Gali No.5, Gazipur Dairy Farm, Delhi and he alleged that the accused Deepak Sharma associated with Manoj Kumar came at his shop and demanded Rs 2000 per month on behalf of the then MLA of the area for non interference in running the fair price shop and took Rs. 2000/- from the complainant by putting him under the fear of getting the shop sealed and accused threatened him to give money every month. It is further stated by the complainant that when it came to his knowledge that accused was arrested on complaints made by other fair price shop owners regarding similar demands from them by the accused, he also filed a complaint in the PS . Consequently, upon this complainant, an FIR no 774/2015 was registered in PS Gazipur and the investigation commenced.
During the investigation police had also interrogated the MLA Manoj Verma, however the IO ruled out his role in the incident alleged by the complainant. The chargesheet was filed only against the accused Deepak Sharma for the offences u/s 384/506 IPC Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2025.12.03 18:12:26 +0530 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh page 2 of 20
03. After taking the cognizance as mentioned in the chargesheet, accused was summoned and on his appearance complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused. After hearing arguments, accused was discharged for the offence u/s 506 IPC, vide order dated. 28.06.2017, and charge for offence punishable under section 384 IPC was framed against the accused by Ld. Predecessor of the court, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
04. The prosecution had cited total 08 witnesses in the present matter.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION:-
05. The prosecution in support of present case has examined total 07 witnesses.
06. PW1 is Sh. Ram Bhaj Goyal, who deposed that in the year 2015 he was working as salesman at affair shop of Sh. Madan Lal Satpal at B-49, Gali No. 5, Gazipur Dairy Farm,Delhi and in the month of August 2015, a person namely Deepak Sharma associated with Manoj Kumar came at his shop for demanding monthly payment from his shop. Accused demanded money of Rs. 2000/-
and he refused for the same. After 1-2 days, accused Deepak Sharma SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN Date: 2025.12.03 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh page 3 of 20 18:12:34 +0530 again sent some other person for demanding money, then he gave that person Rs.2000/-. Then some other ration shop owner namely Ajay Verma had some dispute with accused. PW1 further deposed that thereafter he also gave a complaint to police, which is Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. Accused demanded money from stating that "ration ki dukaan chalate ho, paise do". PW-1 further stated that he could not identify accused Deepak Sharma.
6a As the PW1 did not support the case of prosecution on the identification of the accused, so PW1 was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State with the permission of court, wherein PW1 stated that police had written his statement Ex.PW1/A on his dictation and he had signed his statement after reading the same. PW1 was confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/A given to police, PW1 stated that he had given the complaint to the police, after which the present case was registered. He further stated that police arrested accused Deepak Sharma in the PS, however he had not seen him. He further identified his signatures at Point A on Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C Ex.PW1/D and Ex. PW1/E. PW1 further stated that he had not signed the documents after reading the same. He denied the suggestions that he deposed falsely to the fact that he had not seen accused in the PS at the time of his arrest. He further stated that after registration of the case, his statement was not recorded by any Magistrate. He was confronted with statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.PC Ex.PW1/F, and SACHIN Digitally signed FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh page 4 of 20 by SACHIN Date: 2025.12.03 18:12:48 +0530 after going through the same, PW1 submitted that he had given the said statement and same bears his signature at point A. He further submitted that statement Ex.PW1/F was not recorded by the Magistrate and he denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely in this regard. Accused was pointed out to PW1 and asked whether he was the same person, who used to come at his shop for demanding money, to which PW1 stated that he could not identify accused due to lapse of time. He further denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not identifying the accused since he have been won over by the accused.
6b. PW1 was cross examined by Ld defence counsel, wherein he stated that he was looking after the shop wholly and solely as owner could not come at the shop as owner was not keeping well. PW1 further deposed that the cash register, cash receipt, stock register, cash memo were sometime complete and sometime were not complete at the shop. He further admitted that it is not possible to run a ration shop after complying all government rules and regulations and it is the duty of the owner/licensee of the shop to maintain the same. He further stated that he had made the complaint because his ration shop owner had asked him to do so. Complaint Ex.PW1/A was written by the police officer. He had only signed the same just because Ajay Verma had asked him to sign the complaint Ex.PW1/A. He further stated that Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/E were all blank when his signature were obtained on the same. He further stated that MLA SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN Date: 2025.12.03 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh page 5 of 20 18:12:54 +0530 Manoj Kumar was the Chairman and accused Deepak Sharma was the member of the ration committee who were authorized and competent to check their ration shop randomly at their will any time they wanted , on complaint or without complaint from anyone. He further admitted the fact that license of their ration shop could be cancelled only by the officers of the Food and Supply department. He further admitted that cancelled shop can always be restored if the requisite documents and the compliance is shown to the concerned authorities. He further admitted that he was not under fear regarding cancellation of the license of his ration shop. He further stated that he did not remember when he had given Rs. 2000/- to the person of the MLA. He also do not know the name of the person who had taken Rs.2000/- from him. He further stated that accused Deepak Sharma was not that person, who had taken Rs. 2000/- from him.
07. PW2 is HC Yashivir Singh, who deposed that on 11.08.2015, he was posted at PS Gazipur and working as duty officer from 4.00 pm to 12.00 mid night. On that day, at about 8.20 pm, ASI Yashpal himself produced a rukka before him for registration of FIR. He registered the present FIR on the basis of rukka and proved the copy of the same as Ex. PW2/A. He further stated that he had made the endorsement on rukka i.e. Ex. PW2/B bearing his signature at point A. He further stated that he also handed over copy of FIR and SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh page 6 of 20 Date: 2025.12.03 18:12:58 +0530 original rukka to HC Jeet Pal to hand over the same to ASI Yashpal for further investigation.
08. PW3 is HC Jeetpal, who deposed that on 11.08.2015, he was posted as Constable at PS Gazipur and on that day DO handed over the copy of present FIR and original rukka to IO ASI Yashpal and he handed over the same to him, who was present at the PS with the complainant. He further stated that he joined the investigation of the present case alongwith IO ASI Yashpal, and during investigation, IO had arrested accused Deepak Sharma in PS, who was already arrested in other cases also and he signed the documents pertaining to that which is Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C both bearing his signatures at point C. PW-3 further stated that IO had also interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point B. Accused had taken them to the spot i.e. B- 49, Gali No.5, Gazipur Dairy and there IO prepared the pointing out memo at the instance of the accused vide Ex.PW1/E bearing his signature at point B. IO recorded his statement. PW3 identified the accused in the court. He further stated that complainant Ram Bhaj Goyal was also present in the PS at the time of arrest of accused.
8a In the cross examination, PW-3 stated that he was introduced to the complainant and accused by the IO and he did not SACHIN know both of them prior to the incident. He further denied all the Digitally signed by SACHIN Date: 2025.12.03 18:13:05 +0530 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh page 7 of 20 suggestions put to him regarding preparation of arrest memo, pointing out memo and disclosure statement or that he was merely a signatory to the documents or that he deposed falsely to facilitiate the police case at the instance of police officials. He further stated that he know about the matter which relates to extortion of money from ration shop. He further stated that he was never aware of any extortion event by the accused prior to the present case and his joining the investigation and he further admitted that he came to know about extortion at the police station itself.
09. PW-4 is Sh Madan Lal, who deposed that he was license holder of fair price shop no. 6519 at B-49, Gali No.5, Gazipur Dairy Farm and he had kept a helper/salesman namely Ram Bhaj Goyal. His helper had not told him anything. He was ill at that time and have no knowledge about the present case.
9a As this witness did not support the case of the prosecution, so with the permission of the court, Ld APP put some leading questions to him, wherein he stated that Ram Bhaj was carrying the business activity. He denied the suggestion that Ram Bhaj had informed him that Deepak Sharma had come to the said shop for extortion of money i.e. Rs. 2000/- and he had threatened that he would keep continue the said demand otherwise, would not allowed the shop to be continued. He know MLA Manoj Kumar but SACHIN FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh page 8 of 20 Digitally signed by SACHIN Date:
2025.12.03 18:13:10 +0530 not Deepak. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely due to fear of MLA and the position of the accused. This witness was not cross examined by Ld defence counsel.
10 PW-5 is SI Arun Kumar who deposed that on 18.08.2015, he was posted as SI at PS Gazipur and on that day he received the file of present case on the order of SHO and he had gone through the same and recorded the statement of one Madan Lal and salesman Ram Bhaj Goyal u/s 161 Cr.PC. He served notice u/s 91 Cr.PC to concerned FSO, copy of the same is Mark A-1 bearing his signature at point A and their reply is Mark B. He voluntarily stated that the original notice and reply were attached with the case FIR no. 769/15 PS Gazipur, wherein he is the IO. He proved the certififed copy of license issued to Madan Lal vide Ex.PW5/A and on completion of investigation, he filed the challan before the court. PW5 identified the accused in the court.
10a In the cross examination conducted by Ld defence counsel, he stated that he did not know the complainant prior to the present case and he did not collect his identity proof. He even did not collect the identity proof of licence holder namely Madan Lal and he stated that accused was formally arrested in the present case.
11. PW-6 is SI Yashpal, who deposed that on 11.08.20915, SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN Date: FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh page 9 of 20 2025.12.03 18:13:16 +0530 he was posted at PS Gazipur as ASI and on that day, the then SHO namely A.K. Singh called him at his office and introduced one complainant Ram Bhaj Goyal and directed him to record his statement. Accordingly, he enquired from him and recorded the statement of the complainant vide Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point B. PW6 further stated that he endorsed the same and prepared the rukka Ex.PW6/A bearing his signature at point A. He further stated that he got the FIR registered through DO. PW6 further stated that he alongwith the complainant went to the spot i.e. B-49, Gali No.5, Gazipur Dairy Farm, where complainant pointed out shop no. 6519 and he also stated that the said shop was allotted to Madan lal Satpal and he was working there as a salesman. He prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant, which is Ex.PW6/B bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he alongwith complainant returned back to PS. PW6 further stated that outside the compound of PS , Ct Jeet Pal met him and produced one copy of FIR and rukka. They entered the premises of PS where complainant pointed out towards one person who was sitting with other IO and identified him as accused Deepak Sharma. Accordingly, he enquired accused, who was in the custody of IO/SI Arun Kumar and IO produced him the copy of disclosure statement of accused Deepak in FIR No. 769/2015 at PS Ghazipur, which is Ex.PW6/C . PW6 further stated that he arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW1/B and conducted his personal search vide memo SACHIN FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh page 10 of 20 Digitally signed by SACHIN Date: 2025.12.03 18:13:21 +0530 Ex.PW1/C both bearing his signature at point C. Accused refused to sign the abovesaid documents. PW6 further stated that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused vide memo Ex.PW1/D bearing his signature at point C. Accused took them to the spot and pointed out shop situated at H. No. B-49, Gali No. 5, Gazipur Dairy Farm Delhi. He prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW1/E and thereafter accused was handed over to SI Arun in his matter. Thereafter he received custody of accused and on next day, accused was produced before the concerned court. He got recorded the statement of complainant before the concerned Magistrate, which is Ex.PW1/F. PW6 identified the accused in the court.
11a In the cross examination, PW 6 stated that the owner of the Fair Price Shop was Madan Lal Satpal. He did not meet with the owner of the Fair Price shop. He did not inquire any persons from the neighbourhood with regard to alleged incident. There was no CCTV camera installed at the said Fair Price Shop. He further stated that he did not know to whom the amount of Rs.2000/- belonged to, whether it belonged to complainant or to the owner of fair price shop. He further stated that he do not know about other cases related to the accused. PW6 denied the suggestions that accused was falsely implicated in this case or in other matter or that accused was implicated in the matter because of political rivalary between the Pradhan of the Association of Fair Price Shop and accused. He SACHIN FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh page 11 of 20 Digitally signed by SACHIN Date: 2025.12.03 18:13:32 +0530 denied all other suggestions put to him by Ld defence counsel.
12. PW-7 is Anindita Dey, Senior Assitant, Circle-56 Food and supply department and she produced the summoned record of licence of FPS number 6519 Gharoli Dairy Farm Ghazipur, Delhi and as per the record the licence of said shop was issued in the name of M/s Madan Lal Satpal for running the fair price shop. She proved the copy of attested photocopy of licence is Ex.PW5/A (OSR).
12a In the cross examination, conducted by Ld defence counsel, PW7 stated that she has no personal knowledge about the case and she had joined the office in the month of May 2024.
13. After examination of the above prosecution witnesses, at request, PE was closed vide order dated 21.12.2024.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:
14. Statements of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C on 21.12.2024, wherein all the incriminating evidence were put to him to which he pleaded innocence and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present matter at the instance of one Ajay Verma who is the brother of Anita, licence holder of the shop no. 9016, who was Pradhan/President of Fair Price Shop owner SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh page 12 of 20 Date: 2025.12.03 18:13:36 +0530 Association. He further stated that he has been falsely implicated by complainant Ajay Verma as he belongs to Congress Political party and he belongs to the rival party i.e. Aam Aadmi party worker and due to this reason, he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
ARGUMENTS:
15. Final arguments heard from Ld. APP for the State and from Ld. Counsel for accused Sh. Prem Chandra. During final arguments, Ld. APP argued that testimonies of the material witness are reliable for conviction of the accused in this case. The Ld. Counsel for the accused, on the other hand, argued that material contradictions have appeared in the testimonies of the PWs, complainant did not support the case of prosecution and prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
FINDINGS AND REASONS THEREOF:-
16. Accused has been indicted u/s 384 IPC which provides punishment for the offence of extortion. Section 383 IPC defines 'extortion' as follows:
"Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, SACHIN FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh page 13 of 20 Digitally signed by SACHIN Date: 2025.12.03 18:13:42 +0530 or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security commits extortion."
17. A plain reading of above definition of extortion under Section 383 IPC discloses the following essential ingredients:
(i) accused intentionally put the victim to fear of injury to his/her person or to any other person;
(ii) thereby accused dishonestly induces a person put to fear;
(iii)deliver to person any property/valuable security.
18. Given the facts of the case, the prosecution was required to prove the incident(s) of extortion by establishing the above mentioned ingredients beyond reasonable doubts through direct evidence.
19. The defence of the accused is that he has been falsely implicated on account of political rivalry. In his examination under section 313, CrPC accused took the defence that complainant had filed the present case at the behest of Ajay Verma who was a member of Congress party and the accused being a member of Aam Aadmi party has been falsely implicated in the present case.
20. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimony of the complainant himself. Being the complainant and the only eye witness of the incident, he is the star SACHIN FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh page 14 of 20 Digitally signed by SACHIN Date: 2025.12.03 18:13:55 +0530 witness of the prosecution. In order to convict the accused, it has to be seen from the testimony of PW1 whether allegations of extortion have been established beyond reasonable doubts or not. The testimony of PW1 shows that he did not support the case of the prosecution in toto. PW1 though deposed about demand of money, he failed to identify the accused as the perpetrator of the crime and as the person who made demands of money from him. During his cross examination by Ld APP, he stated that after the registration of the case, his statement was not recorded by any Magistrate. He further contradicted himself by saying that his statement Ex.PW1/F, recorded U/s 164 Cr.PC was made by him but the same was not recorded by the Magistrate. Accused Deepak Sharma was specifically pointed out to the witness but witness states that he could not identify accused Deepak Sharma present in court on that day, due to lapse of time. PW1 further stated in his cross examination that he had made the complaint Ex.PW1/A to the police only because other ration shop owners had made the complaint and his shop owner i.e PW4 told him to complaint, whereas PW4 during his cross examination stated that PW1 did not told informed him regarding demand of money by accused and he has no knowledge about present case . PW1 further stated that he had signed the complaint on the asking of Ajay Verma. He further stated that Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/E were all blank when his signature were obtained on the same. SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh page 15 of 20 Date: 2025.12.03 18:14:00 +0530
21. PW2 is the Duty Officer of the case who has only proved the registration of FIR and the endorsement on the rukka. His testimony does not prove the incident in question.
22. PW3 is HC Jeet Pal, who handed over the FIR and original rukka to IO ASI Yashpal and joined the investigation with ASI Yashpal. He is not an eyewitness to the incident.
23. The prosecution has examined the owner of the PDS shop, Sh. Madan Lal as PW4. However, the testimony of PW4 clearly shows that he did not support the case of the prosecution against the accused. It is evident from his testimony that he did not depose anything in support of the allegations of the complainant. He only deposed that he is not aware about present case and his servant/ PW1 did not informed him.
24. PW5 is SI Arun Kumar, who had concluded the investigation and filed the challan before the court.
25. PW6 SI Yashpal is the IO of the case, who conducted the investigation and proved the relevant documents.
26. PW7 Anindita Dey produced the record regarding ownership of fair price shop no. 6519, Gharoli Dairy Farm Ghazipur. SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh page 16 of 20 Date: 2025.12.03 18:16:15 +0530
27. Thus it is now clear that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the case of the prosecution primarily rests upon the testimony of PW 1. The perusal of the testimony of PW1 shows that he did not support the case of the prosecution entirely. It can be easily culled out from the statement of PW1 that a person a namely Deepak Sharma used to come to his shop for demanding monthly payment but he refused to pay. He also stated that he gave money of Rs 2000/- on one occasion to a person who came to his shop. He however failed to identify the accused in the court. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and leading question were then put to the witness. It is trite that identification of the accused is the core issue for establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Once the identity of the accused is not established in the court qua the offence charged against the accused, it is difficult to fasten the accused with the culpability of the crime alleged against him.
28. It is also pertinent to note that under Indian law, the evidence of hostile witnesses not discarded completely. The legal maxim, "false in uno false in ombnibus" is not applicable in India. With respect to the evidentiary value of hostile witness, it was observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar vs. State of SACHIN FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh page 17 of 20 Digitally signed by SACHIN Date: 2025.12.03 18:14:06 +0530 Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, as under: -
"25. It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced, or washed off the record altogether. The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof."
29. Therefore, it has to be seen if the evidence of such hostile witness can be relied in part. The pith and substance of the testimony of star witness is that his evidentiary value is reduced to nothing. Complainant has completely let go off the accused, arrayed before the court as the perpetrator of the crime alleged, as the person who had extorted money from him. Thus, he has completely exonerated the accused. Resultantly, the testimony of star witness is not at all worthy of any credence and cannot be believed in order to lend credence to the fact that the accused has committed offence of extortion. The witness deposed that he cannot identify the accused Deepak Sharma. After the permission from the court, leading question was put to the witness by the prosecution for the identification of accused as the perpetrator of the crime, the witness could not identify the accused Deepak Sharma.
30. It is a settled proposition of law that prosecution is SACHIN FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh page 18 of 20 Digitally signed by SACHIN Date: 2025.12.03 18:14:11 +0530 supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. In order to prove its case, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts upon the accused. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
31. In the instant case, the material/star witness of the case has not supported the case of the prosecution. There is not even an iota of evidence against the accused therefore, the very foundation on which the entire prosecution case rests has been demolished by the star witness Ram Bhajan Goyal. When the star witness has not implicated the accused with the offence, no guilt whatsoever can be fastened upon him. No incriminating evidence has come on record even otherwise to connect the accused with the crime.
32. Thus, the identity of the accused could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. The constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to every individual is of primary importance, and the conviction of the accused must rest not on the weakness of the SACHIN defence he put up but on the strength of the evidence for the Digitally signed by SACHIN Date: 2025.12.03 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh page 19 of 20 18:16:31 +0530 prosecution. In the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity of the culprit, the entire case of the prosecution crumbles down. The prosecution has completely failed to bring home the charge under section 384 IPC against the accused Deepak.
33. Accordingly, accused Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh, S/o Bhupender Nath is acquitted in the present case. Accused to furnish bail bonds in compliance of Section 437-A Cr.PC.
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN
Pronounced in open Court SACHIN Date:
2025.12.03
18:16:36
on 03.12.2025 +0530
(SACHIN)
JMFC-03 (East),
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Deepak Sharma @ Dinesh page 20 of 20