Delhi District Court
State vs Jitender Gangwal on 6 June, 2024
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05 (SOUTH-WEST),
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY : SH. NITESH GOEL
STATE V JITENDER GANGWAL*
FIR No. 409/23
Police Station: VIKAS PURI
Under Section: 188 IPC
CNR no. DLSW-02 050768 2023
Date of institution : 11.10.2023
Date of reserving : 06.06.2024.
Date of pronouncement : 06.06.2024
JUDGMENT
a) CIS Number 11793/23
b) Date of commission of offence 15.05.2024
c) Name of the complainant HC Manendra
d) Name, parentage and address Jitender Gangwal s/o Sh.
of the accused Mangu Ram Gangwal r/o Plot
no. 92, Rajharsh Vihar Vikas
Nagar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
e) Offence complained of U/s 188 IPC
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order Acquitted
h) Date of final order 06.06.2024.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT
STATE V JITENDER GANGWAL FIR No. 409/23 PS Station: VIKAS PURI U/s : 188 IPC 1
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 08.08.2023, at 6:40 pm at DDA Market H Block , Vikas Puri, within jurisdiction of PS Vikas Puri, accused had employed one servant namely Hari s/o Lal Bahadur without his police verification and thereby accused violated the notification no. 8495-8594/SO- ACP/Tilak Nagar dated 01.08.2023. At the complaint of complainant, the present case was registered and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under section 188 IPC.
2. After going through the chargesheet and entire material available on record, cognizance was taken and the accused was summoned. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to him and provisions of Cr. P. C. were complied with. On the basis of prima facie evidence, notice was framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 188 IPC vide order dated 15.05.2024, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. PW1 Ct. Karambir has deposed that on 08.08.2023 he was posted at PS Vikas Puri as Ct. That day he along with HC Manendra were on patrolling duty and during patrolling they were conducting police verification and they reached at DDA Market H Block Vikas Puri at around 6:30 pm. There they met servant Hari and asked him about his police verification to which he denied and told them that he several time asked owner for the same. After that they met owner of the shop Jitender Gangawal and asked him about the police verification of Hari and he also STATE V JITENDER GANGWAL FIR No. 409/23 PS Station: VIKAS PURI U/s : 188 IPC 2 denied that police verification of Hari was not done. IO prepared rukka and handed over to him for registration of FIR. He went to the PS and got the FIR registered. He came back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and rukka to IO. Accused was arrested in his presence vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/A. Accused correctly identified by the witness. IO prepared site plan vide Ex.PW1/B.
4. PW2 HC Manender has deposed on the lines of PW 1. He has proved the rukka vide Ex. PW 2/A
5. Accused admitted the FIR, Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, Permission u/s 195 Cr. PC, order no. 8495-8594/SO-ACP/Tilak Nagar dated 01.08.2023 as Ex. A1 to A4, however the accused denied the allegations made against him. No other witness has been examined by the prosecution. Prosecution evidence was closed. Statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. Accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused did not opt for defence evidence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard at length.
6. No other witness has been examined by the prosecution. Prosecution evidence was closed. Statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. Accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present STATE V JITENDER GANGWAL FIR No. 409/23 PS Station: VIKAS PURI U/s : 188 IPC 3 case. Accused did not opt for defence evidence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard at length.
7. Ld. APP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the witnesses have given corroborative statements and the accused is liable to be convicted in this case.
8. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
OBSERVATION
9. As per order no. 8495-8594/SO-ACP/Tilak Nagar dated 01.08.2023, the direction had been issued to the agencies like MCD, NDMC, Police, PWD, DDA, Dms, FC and Tehsil Dar to publicize the said order through the press and by affixing the same on the notice board at the premises of the said agencies. However, the prosecution has failed to place on record any evidence which shows that the said order was published in the newspaper which is under circulation in the vicinity of the area which might have made the people sensitized of the direction given in the order.
10. In view of the same the court is of the view that the order has not been enforced by the said agencies in the letter and spirit, therefore the court is of the STATE V JITENDER GANGWAL FIR No. 409/23 PS Station: VIKAS PURI U/s : 188 IPC 4 view that as the offender was not aware of the offense enforced recently therefore he cannot be held liable for it. Accordingly, the accused deserves to be acquitted of the offence punishable under 188 IPC.
Announced in open court on 06.06.2024.
(Nitesh Goel ) Metropolitan Magistrate-05 (South-West) 06.06.2024.
Digitally signed
Nitesh by Nitesh Goel Date: Goel 2024.06.06 16:27:23 +0530 STATE V JITENDER GANGWAL FIR No. 409/23 PS Station: VIKAS PURI U/s : 188 IPC 5