Delhi District Court
State vs Irfan on 1 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: MS. SAYESHA CHADHA, DJS
FIR No. 643/2015
PS : Kotwali
U/s 379/356/511/174A IPC
State vs. Irfan
Date of Institution of case: 28.09.2015
Date when Judgment reserved: 28.07.2025
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 01.09.2025
JUDGMENT
A. Case No. : 289750/2016
B. Date of Institution of Case : 28.09.2015
C. Date of Commission of Offence : 02.08.2015
D. Name of the complainant : Sh. Suresh Kumar
E. Name of the Accused : Irfan S/o Sh. Irshad
& his parentage and residence R/o Vagabond, Hanuman
Mandir, Yamuna Bazar,
Delhi.
F. Offences complained of : U/s 379/356/511/174A
Indian Penal Code
G. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Final order : Convicted u/s 379/356/511
IPC and acquitted u/s 174A
IPC for the charge framed on
27.07.2019 and u/s 174A
IPC for the charge framed on
07.05.2025.
State Vs. Irfan
FIR No. 643/15
PS Kotwali
1/19
I. Date of such order : 01.09.2025
Brief statement of reasons for decision of the case:
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 02.08.2015 at about 7.15 pm, at Patri, New Lajpat Rai Market, Upper Subhash Marg, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Kotwali, accused used criminal force while snatching the mobile phone as mentioned in seizure memo Mark X from the possession of complainant Sh. Suresh Kumar. Accused was declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 11.01.2018 by the court of Sh. Dinesh Kumar, the then Ld. MM, Delhi in the present case, within the jurisdiction of PS Kotwali. Accused failed to appear before Court despite proclamation against accused in term of Section 82 (1) CrPC. On 05.12.2022, accused failed again to appear before the court at the specified date and time despite execution of process under Section 82 (clause 1) CrPC and thereby you were declared PO vide order dated 05.12.2022 and thereby committing an offence punishable u/s 356/379/511/174A Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as IPC).
2. Upon conclusion of investigation, a final report was filed before the court against the accused. Cognizance of offence punishable u/s 356/379/511 IPC was taken. Upon summoning, the accused appeared and copy of charge sheet were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C). Thereafter, charge State Vs. Irfan FIR No. 643/15 PS Kotwali 2/19 for offence punishable u/s 356/379/511/174A IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and opted for trial.
3. Thereafter, the prosecution was given the opportunity to substantiate the allegations against the accused. The prosecution examined 8 (eight) witnesses in support of its case:
4. PW-1 Ct. Shyam Kumar has deposed in his examination-in- chief that on 02.08.2015, he was assigned the duty at local market in the area of Lal Quila, New Lajpat Rai Market from 09 am to 09 pm. At about 7:20 pm, he saw that some public persons had gathered at the spot and were beating one person. He immediately went to the spot and inquired about the same. The complainant namely Suresh met him and informed him that accused was trying to snatch his mobile phone. He has correctly identified accused. He took the complainant and the accused who was apprehended by the complainant and the public persons to PP Red Fort and produced both of them to ASI Yashpal and narrated him the whole incident. ASI Yashpal took accused and the complainant alongwith him to the spot where complainant showed him the place of incident and also narrated him the whole incident which was reduced into writing vide Mark 1/A by him and thereafter, prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. As per directions, he went to PS Kotwali, got the FIR lodged and returned to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. IO prepared site plan of the spot Mark 1/B. Thereafter, IO State Vs. Irfan FIR No. 643/15 PS Kotwali 3/19 arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide Mark 1/C. His personal search was also conducted vide Mark 1/D. His disclosure statement was also recorded Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. Pointing out memo was also prepared by the IO Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point A. Accused was got medically examined at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. After medical examination, they came at PS and the accused was kept behind the bars.
5. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-1 stated that no public person was inquired by the IO in his presence. He admitted that the accused had not committed the present offence in his presence or that he had not been an eye witness to the incident of snatching. He denied that he never went to the spot. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
6. PW-2 Suresh Kumar has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 02.08.2015, he came to Delhi for appearing in ITI Examination. After examination, he went to New Lajpat Rai Market for taking some articles from patri market. It was around 07:15 pm, when he received phone call from his house and he started talking on phone. In the meantime, one boy came near to him and tried to snatch his mobile phone and for that purpose, he started scuffling with him, however, he did not allow him to take his mobile phone and raised alarm by saying "Phone Chhin Raha hai Phone Chhin Raha hai". With the help of public person, the said State Vs. Irfan FIR No. 643/15 PS Kotwali 4/19 boy was caught hold and public persons also started beating him. In the meantime, one police official namely Shyam Kumar also came at the spot and rescued accused from the public persons. Later on, he came to know the name of accused as Irfan. Thereafter, he alongwith accused were taken to Police Post by said police official namely Shyam Kumar. At the police post, his statement was recorded by the police official Ex.PW2/A bearing his signature at point A. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/B bearing his signature at point A. The personal search of the accused was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW2/C bearing his signature at point A. The disclosure statement of the accused was also recorded vide memo Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point B. Pointing out memo of the spot was also prepared by the IO at his instance Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature at point B. IO recorded his statement. His mobile phone was not seized by the IO. He has correctly identified accused.
7. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-2 stated that on the day of incident, he went alone in the market. The spot was a crowded place. He admitted that many other public persons were looking after the articles lying in the market. He denied that due to crowd, accused only touched his body and he had not tried to snatch his mobile phone. The police official did not record statement of any public person in his presence. He denied that no such incident of snatching ever took place with him, rather accused touched me due to crowd. He denied State Vs. Irfan FIR No. 643/15 PS Kotwali 5/19 that he deliberately implicated the accused falsely in the present case. He denied that he signed all documents at the instance of IO without going through the details of documents. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
8. PW-3 SI Shakti Raj has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 18.04.2017, he was assigned the duty to execute the person u/s 82 CrPC against accused. He visited his house at Vagaboond, Footpath, Hanuman Mandir, Yamunz Bazar, Delhi to execute the process u/s 82 CrPC. Accused was not found at the abovesaid address and whereabouts of the accused Irfan was not known to anyone. He affixed the copy of process on the wall. He also affixed the copy of the process on the notice board of the court. He submitted the report regarding the same Ex.PW3/A bearing his signature at point A.
9. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-3 stated that he did not record the statement of any public person at the place where he had gone to execute the process u/s 82 CrPC. He admitted that place was a crowded place. No video was prepared regarding munadi (verbally and not by beating drums). He cannot tell the name of person who had announced the name of accused Irfan. He had paid Rs. 50/- each for beating drums. No bill is placed on record. He was alone during the execution process of proceedings u/s 82 CrPC. He did not remember whether photographs of the pillar on which he had State Vs. Irfan FIR No. 643/15 PS Kotwali 6/19 affixed the notice was taken or not. No photographs of the same is available on record. No public person joined the proceedings despite his request. He denied that he did not visit the spot or that all the documents were prepared at the police station or that he did not affix any notice on the pillar and the notice board of the court. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
10. PW-4 Retired ASI Yashpal has deposed in his examination- in-chief that on 02.08.2015, he was posted at PP Red Fort, PS Kotwali as ASI. On that day, Ct. Shyam came in PP Red Fort alongwith complainant Suresh Kumar and accused. He got recorded the statement of complainant. He prepared Tehrir Ex. PW4/A bearing his signature at point A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Shyam. He handed over him copy of FIR and original rukka. Thereafter, he prepared site plan at the instance of complainant Ex.PW4/B bearing his signature at point X. Thereafter, he arrested and personally searched the accused Irfan vide memos Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C bearing his signature at point X. He recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point X. He also prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point X. After medical examination of the accused, he lodged the accused in the lock-up. On the next day, he was produced before the court. He has correctly identified accused. After completion of investigation, he prepared the challan and filed before the court.
State Vs. Irfan FIR No. 643/15 PS Kotwali 7/19
11. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-4 stated that no public person was joined in the investigation. Rukka was sent to PS at about 08:45 pm. All the statements were recorded in the PP, PS and the spot. He received the copy of FIR at about 09:40 pm. He denied that accused did not attempt to take away the mobile phone from the pocket of the complainant and due to some confusion, complainant apprehended the accused. He admitted that the spot was a highly crowded area. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
12. PW-5 ASI Sukhpal Singh has deposed in his examination-in- chief that on 24.06.2019, after completion of the investigation, he prepared the supplementary chargesheet for offence under Section 174-A IPC against accused and submitted before the Court.
13. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. APP for the State, PW-5 stated that he did not record the statement of any witness.
14. PW-5 HC Manish has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 07.05.2025, on the direction of the court, he prepared the charge-sheet u/s 174A IPC against accused and submitted the same in the Hon'ble Court after recording the statement of HC Manish Kumar u/s 161 CrPC.
15. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. APP for the State, PW-5 denied that he had prepared the charge-sheet and State Vs. Irfan FIR No. 643/15 PS Kotwali 8/19 submitted the same in the court.
16. PW-6 SI Dharambir has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 30.05.2019, he was posted at PS Prasad Nagar as a SI. On 28.05.2019, he had moved an application for production of accused Irfan vide Ex. PW6/1, bearing his signature at point "A" as he came to know that he had been declared as PO in the present case through secret informer. Thereafter on 30.05.2019, accused was produced in the Court. After taking permission of the Court, he formally arrested and interrogated accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/A, bearing his signature at point "A". Accused was sent in JC. He has correctly identified accused.
17. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-6 stated that he had come to know about the fact that accused had been declared PO through secret informer. He denied that he did not conduct any such proceedings properly. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
18. PW-6 HC Manish Kumar has deposed in his examination-in- chief that on 28.12.2024, he was posted as HC at Anti-Narcotic Cell. On that day, he received the secret information from the secret informer that the accused Irfan was present at Jama Mazjid, who was PO in case FIR No. 643/15, PS Kotwali. After that, he went to the Jama Mazjid and apprehended the accused, viz., Irfan. He interrogated accused and accused were found PO in the present case. He arrested accused and conducted personal search vide State Vs. Irfan FIR No. 643/15 PS Kotwali 9/19 Memo marked as A/1 and A/2 both bearing his signature at point A. After that, accused was medically examined at LNJP Hospital. After that, he prepared the Kalandara and accused was produced before the court and he was sent to JC. He has correctly identified accused.
19. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-6 admitted that no Public Person was asked to join the investigation. He admitted that the accused was not interrogated w.r.t. his knowledge about the PO. The accused was arrested at around 12 pm noon. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
20. The prosecution evidence was closed on 05.06.2025 and the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 read with section 281 of CrPC on 01.07.2025, wherein he pleaded his innocence and stated to have been falsely implicated. The accused has not opted to lead defence evidence. Final arguments were heard. I have cogitated over the submissions made by ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsel for the accused person.
DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREON:
21. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for state and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and carefully perused the documents on record.
22. In order to ensure convenient appraisal of evidence, the following points of determination have been framed against the State Vs. Irfan FIR No. 643/15 PS Kotwali 10/19 accused.
1. Whether on 02.08.2015 at about 7.15 pm, the accused had attempted to snatch the mobile phone of the complainant from his possession and without his consent.
2. Whether the accused had absconded or was concealing himself that a process u/s 82 CrPC was issued against him and consequently, he was declared as proclaimed person vide order dated 11.01.2018.
3. Whether the accused had absconded or was concealing himself that a process u/s 82 CrPC was issued against him and consequently, he was declared as proclaimed person vide order dated 05.12.2022.
23. Firstly, the court shall deal with the first point of determination.
24. The burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt shall be on the prosecution.
25. In the case in hand, the complainant has examined himself as PW-2 and stated on oath that on 02.08.2015, when he had come to Delhi for appearing in an examination, he went to New Lajpat Rai Market for taking some articles. It was around 7.15 pm, when he received a phone call and started talking. In the meantime, one boy came near him and tried to snatch his mobile phone. He did not State Vs. Irfan FIR No. 643/15 PS Kotwali 11/19 allow him to snatch the mobile phone and raised alarm saying "phone chin raha hai, phone chin raha hai". With the help of public persons, the said boy was caught and one police official, namely, Shyam Kumar came at the spot and rescued the accused from the public persons. Later on, his name was revealed as Irfan. The complainant has correctly identified the accused in the court. In fact the arrest memo Ex.PW2/B and the personal search memo Ex.PW2/C have been counter signed by the complainant. The complainant has remained unrebutted in his cross-examination.
26. The FIR was registered on the same day ie., 02.08.2015. PW-1 Ct. Shyam Kumar has corroborated the testimony of the complainant and stated in his examination-in-chief that on 02.08.2015, when he was posted as a constable at PS Kotwali, at about 7.20 pm, he saw some public persons had gathered at the spot and were beating one person. He met one person at the place of incident who informed that the accused Irfan was trying to snatch his mobile phone and thus being beaten by the public.
27. PW-4 Retired SI Yashpal has also corroborated the version of the prosecution.
28. In the cross-examination of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, it has been stated that no public persons were joined in the investigation. It was argued by the Ld. Defence counsel, that there were no independent witnesses to the alleged crime. However, this court is of the opinion that as per the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble State Vs. Irfan FIR No. 643/15 PS Kotwali 12/19 Supreme Court titled as Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2011) 3 SCC 52, it has been held that :-
"It is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distruct. It is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actioins and the documents made by the police. At any rate the Courts cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a presumption of law, the presumtion would be the other way round. The official acts of the police have been regularly performed is the wise pricinple of presumption and recognised even by the legislature"
29. Moreover, in the instant case, the arrest memo Ex.PW2/B and personal search memo Ex.PW2/C are countersigned by the complainant. The accused has also been identified by the complainant in the court. The complainant has no axe to grind against the accused. Hence, this argument of the defence counsel does not hold good.
30. In order to establish the offence of attempt to commit theft by use of criminal force, it is not necessary for the recovery of the mobile phone to be effected from the accused. As per the version of the complainant, the accused had tried to snatch the mobile phone of the complainant. However, the complainant had prevented him from doing so with aid of public persons. However, the act of the accused was sufficient to constitute attempt since it just fell short of the penultimate commission of theft.
31. The chain of circumstances is complete and in view of the abovesaid discussion, the prosecution has been able to discharge its State Vs. Irfan FIR No. 643/15 PS Kotwali 13/19 burden beyond reasonable doubt qua section 379 and 356 IPC read with section 511 IPC. Hence, accused Irfan stands convicted u/s 379 and 356 read with section 511 IPC for attempt to commit theft with the use of criminal force.
32. The court shall now deal with the second point of determination.
2. Whether the accused had absconded or was concealing himself that a process u/s 82 CrPC was issued against him and consequently, he was declared as proclaimed person vide order dated 11.01.2018.
33. The onus to prove the same shall be on the prosecution. Section 82 CrPC states that (1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. (2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:-
(i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides;
(b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village;
(c) a copy thereof shall be affixed 1o some conspicuous part of the Court House; Procematon te be pulisked f , il newpaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides. (3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on specified day, in the manner specified in clause (i) of subSection (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day.
State Vs. Irfan FIR No. 643/15 PS Kotwali 14/19 (4) Where a proclamation published under sub-Section (1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect.
(5) The provisions of sub-Sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration made by the Court under sub-Section (4) as they apply to the proclamation published under sub-Section (1)."
34. It shall be noted that 82 of CrPC clearly provides that the court may publish a written proclamation against a person requiring his appearance only after the court has issued warrants and has reasons to believe that a person against whom warrants have been issued has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrants cannot be executed.
35. In the present case, NBWs were issued against the accused on 29.04.2016 and 23.08.2016. NBWs were received back unexecuted with report that the accused was not traceable at the given address. Consequently, process u/s 82 CrPC was issued on 06.12.2016. It was reported by the process server that accused Irfan was not found at the given address.
36. The Honorable High Court of Delhi in the case of Sunil Tyagi Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr, AIR Online, 2021 Del 912 laid down certain guidelines for issuing process u/s 82 CrPC.
1. Concealment has to be deliberate for the purpose of avoiding arrest. The mere fact that the police could not find the accused is not enough.
2. Pre-requisites to the publication of a proclamation under Section 82(2)(ii) CrPC - Prior to publication under Section 82(2)(ii) CrPC the Police Officer may be mandatorily required to file an Affidavit State Vs. Irfan FIR No. 643/15 PS Kotwali 15/19 disclosing: A picture showing that proclamation has been affixed in a conspicuous place of the house where the person resides. The picture must be taken in a manner that makes it clear to the Court that the proclamation has in fact, been affixed at the said house; The Court must pass an order dealing with the contents of the Affidavit and statement of the process server along with its reasons for directing publication under Section 82(2)(ii).
3. Publication by all three modes essential - Publication by all three modes namely (i) public reading in some conspicuous place of the town/village in such person ordinarily resides; (ii) affixation at some conspicuous part of the house or homestead and (iii) affixation at some conspicuous part of the court house are mandatory under Section 82(2) CrPC. The failure to comply with all the three modes of publication is to be considered invalid publication, according to law as the three sub- clauses (a) to (c) are conjunctive and not disjunctive.
37. Further, the process u/s 82 CrPC was issued and statement of process server was recorded. However, no photographs of affixation on the notice board of the court or the last known address of the accused have been annexed. The publication in newspaper has also not been done. Hence, the process u/s 82 CrPC has not been executed in compliance of the mandate of law.
38. Hence, it can be concluded that since the process u/s 82 CrPC was not duly executed, the accused cannot be held guilty u/s 174A IPC. Accused, Irfan stands acquitted for offence u/s 174A IPC.
39. The court shall now deal with the third point of determination.
3. Whether the accused had absconded or was concealing himself that a process u/s 82 CrPC was issued against him and consequently, he was declared as proclaimed person vide order dated 05.12.2022.
40. The onus to prove the same shall be on the prosecution.
State Vs. Irfan FIR No. 643/15 PS Kotwali 16/19 Section 82 CrPC states that (1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. (2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:-
(i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides;
(b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village;
(c) a copy thereof shall be affixed 1o some conspicuous part of the Court House; Procematon te be pulisked f , il newpaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides. (3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on specified day, in the manner specified in clause (i) of subSection (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day. (4) Where a proclamation published under sub-Section (1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect.
(5) The provisions of sub-Sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration made by the Court under sub-Section (4) as they apply to the proclamation published under sub-Section (1)."
41. It shall be noted that 82 of CrPC clearly provides that the court may publish a written proclamation against a person requiring his appearance only after the court has issued warrants and has reasons to believe that a person against whom warrants have been issued has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrants cannot be executed.
State Vs. Irfan FIR No. 643/15 PS Kotwali 17/19
42. In the present case, NBWs were issued against the accused on 31.01.2022 and 13.05.2022. NBWs were received back unexecuted with report that no such resides at the given address. Consequently, process u/s 82 CrPC was issued on 20.07.2022. It was reported by the process server that accused Irfan was not found at the given address.
43. The Honorable High Court of Delhi in the case of Sunil Tyagi Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr, AIR Online, 2021 Del 912 laid down certain guidelines for issuing process u/s 82 CrPC.
1. Concealment has to be deliberate for the purpose of avoiding arrest. The mere fact that the police could not find the accused is not enough.
2. Pre-requisites to the publication of a proclamation under Section 82(2)(ii) CrPC - Prior to publication under Section 82(2)(ii) CrPC the Police Officer may be mandatorily required to file an Affidavit disclosing: A picture showing that proclamation has been affixed in a conspicuous place of the house where the person resides. The picture must be taken in a manner that makes it clear to the Court that the proclamation has in fact, been affixed at the said house; The Court must pass an order dealing with the contents of the Affidavit and statement of the process server along with its reasons for directing publication under Section 82(2)(ii).
3. Publication by all three modes essential - Publication by all three modes namely (i) public reading in some conspicuous place of the town/village in such person ordinarily resides; (ii) affixation at some conspicuous part of the house or homestead and (iii) affixation at some conspicuous part of the court house are mandatory under Section 82(2) CrPC. The failure to comply with all the three modes of publication is to be considered invalid publication, according to law as the three sub- clauses (a) to (c) are conjunctive and not disjunctive.
44. Further, the process u/s 82 CrPC was issued and statement of process server was recorded. However, no photographs of affixation on the notice board of the court or the last known address of the accused have been annexed. The publication in newspaper State Vs. Irfan FIR No. 643/15 PS Kotwali 18/19 has also not been done. Hence, the process u/s 82 CrPC has not been executed in compliance of the mandate of law.
45. Hence, it can be concluded that since the process u/s 82 CrPC was not duly executed, the accused cannot be held guilty u/s 174A IPC. Accused, Irfan stands acquitted for offence u/s 174A IPC.
46. In view of abovesaid discussions, accused Irfan stands convicted for offence u/s 379 and 356 IPC read with section 511 IPC and is acquitted for offence U/s 174A IPC for the charge framed on 27.07.2019 and accused is also acquitted for offence U/s 174A IPC for the charge framed on 07.05.2025.
Announced in the open court Digitally
signed by
SAYESHA
SAYESHA CHADHA
CHADHA Date:
today. 2025.09.01
17:23:46
+0530
(SAYESHA CHADHA)
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
[This judgment contains 19 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of undersigned.] State Vs. Irfan FIR No. 643/15 PS Kotwali 19/19