Delhi District Court
State vs . Sonu Sharma on 15 January, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIYA MAHENDRA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT: SOUTH DELHI
SAKET COURT COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.
STATE Vs. Sonu Sharma
FIR No. 678/02
P.S. : Mehrauli
U/S 507/509 IPC
THE JUDGMENT
1. DATE OF INSTITUTION OF CASE :27.05.2003
2. SERIAL NUMBER OF THE CASE : 736/2
3. DATE OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE : 18.12.2002
4. NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT :Ms. Neetu Choudhary
5. NAME OF THE ACCUSED & ADDRESS : Sonu Sharma @
Surender s/o Sh.
Balkishan Sharma, R/o
Jhenda Colony, Asola
Fatehpur Beri, Mehrauli,
New Delhi.
6. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF :U/S 507/509 IPC
Page 1 of 5
2
7. THE PLEA OF THE ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
8. DATE OF RESERVE OF JUDGMENT : 15.01.2011
9. THE FINAL JUDGMENT : Acquitted.
10.THE DATE OF FINAL JUDGMENT : 15.01.2011
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION OF CASE:
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 18.12.2002 at about 09.15 p.m., the accused Sonu Sharma committed criminal intimidation by sending an anonymous communication threatening the complainant Ms. Neetu Choudhary on her mobile with injury to her person and reputation in which the complainant was interested with intention to cause alarm and uttered the words to complainant "kitane paise mai chalegi" and "aapne kya decide kiya hai, chalegi kya" on per mobile phone and same shall be heard by the complainant and the accused intruded upon the privacy of the complainant. Thereafter, FIR under Section 507/509 IPC was registered against the accused and investigation was carried out.
Page 2 of 5 3
2. Charge sheet was filed in the court, accused was supplied the documents in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C and vide order dated 27.05.2003, notice for offence under Section 507/509 IPC was served on accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined three witnesses.
4. PW1 ASI Puran Singh was the Duty Officer. He deposed that on the day of incident he received a rukka through Ct. Mangal Ram which was sent by SI Surender Sharma. He further deposed that on the basis of rukka he registered the present FIR. He produced the original copy of FIR in the court which has been exhibited as PW1/A.
5. PW2 Const. Mangal Ram deposed that on the day of incident he along with IO SI Surender Sharma reached at spot on receipt of DD no. 20A. At the spot he and IO met complainant Neetu Choudhary, He further deposed that IO recorded the statement of complainant Neetu Choudhary and rukka was handed over to me for registration of FIR. IO prepared rukka and gave to him Page 3 of 5 4 for the registration of FIR and he took it to the PS and came back to spot after registration the FIR and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to IO. He further deposed that accused present in the court was arrested in his presence vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/A and his personal search of accused was conducted.
6. PW3 ASI Naresh Kumar deposed that further investigation of the case was handed over to him pursuant to letter Ex. PW3/A. He further deposed that he collected calls details Ex. PW3/B of mobile phone number 9810797220 from the office of Airtel. He stated that on completion of investigation, he submitted the charge sheet in the court.
7. The material witness in this case is the complainant Ms. Neetu Choudhary. The Summons repeatedly sent to the complainant Neetu Choudhary received back unserved. Ultimately, on 18.11.2010 last and final opportunity was granted to the prosecution to examine all its witnesses. Consequently, summons were again sent to complainant Ms. Neetu Choudhary through IO which was also received back unexecuted with the report that no person by name of complainant is residing at the given address. The statement of IO Page 4 of 5 5 was also recorded in the court in which he reaffirmed his report.
8. In view of aforesaid, I am of the opinion that as the star witness, complainant Neelu Choudhary is not examined by prosecution on the ground being untraceable, no useful purpose would be served by examining other witnesses of prosecution. As nothing incriminating is on record, SA stands dispensed with. Accordingly accused Sonu Sharma is acquitted. Bail bonds & Surety bond discharged. Endorsement, if any stands cancelled. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on this th 15 day of January, 2011 (PRIYA MAHENDRA) Metropolitan Magistrate:
Mahila Court South Delhi, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi Page 5 of 5