Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Khalid on 21 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ARUSHI PARWAL, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-06, SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLSH020037502018
Cr. Case No.: 2837/2018
FIR No.: 0431/2017
U/S: 323 and 341 IPC
P.S.: Seema Puri
STATE v. MOHD. KHALID
JUDGMENT
1. Date of institution of the case : 25.04.2018
2. Date of commission of offence : 11.07.2017
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Harender Singh, S/o Sh. Jagat Singh.
4. Name of accused(s), parentage and address : Mohd. Khalid, S/o Sh. Mohd. Yasin, R/o H. No. 1178/1118, H-
Block, Raj Market, Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095.
5. Offence(s) complained of : 323/341/506/34 IPC
6. Offence(s) charged with : 323 and 341 IPC Digitally signed by ARUSHI PARWAL ARUSHI Date:
PARWAL 2026.04.21
16:31:57
+0530
FIR No.: 0431/2017 PS Seema Puri 1/6 State v. Mohd. Khalid
7. Plea of accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of pronouncement : 21.04.2026
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 11.07.2017, at around 03:30 a.m., while the complainant and his co-workers were on duty at Meena Market Toll Tax Booth, accused and his associates came there and threatened the complainant to let his vehicle pass without payment of toll. They then beat up the complainant and his co-workers with sticks, as a result of which they sustained injuries. When they tried to escape, the accused obstructed their way and left while threatening them. At the instance of the complainant, the present FIR was lodged at PS Seema Puri for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") read with Section 34 IPC.
2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and cognizance of offences was taken. After appearance of the accused, copy of charge-sheet and documents was supplied to him as per provision under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C."). Thereafter, on 05.02.2024, vide order of Ld. Predecessor, notice was framed upon the accused for offences punishable Digitally signed by ARUSHI ARUSHI PARWAL PARWAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:32:05 +0530 FIR No.: 0431/2017 PS Seema Puri 2/6 State v. Mohd. Khalid under Section 323 and 341 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Matter was accordingly listed for prosecution evidence (PE).
3. During PE, PW/ complainant and eye-witnesses/ injured were dropped from list of witnesses vide order dated 20.04.2026 as they had remained unserved despite issuance of summons through DCP concerned. Accordingly, the complainant and the only eye-witnesses/ injured were dropped from list of PWs and their testimonies had not come on record during the course of trial. Even the remaining prosecution witnesses were dropped from the list of witnesses as the testimonies of the complainant and eye witnesses had not come on record during trial. Since the offences in question were personal in nature and could have been proved beyond reasonable doubt only through the testimonies of the complainant and eye witnesses, no purpose was left in completing the formality of trial. The remaining witnesses were dropped and trial was closed in accordance with law laid down in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration & Anr. [(1996) 9 SCC 766]' , whereby it was held that where there is no prospect of conviction, time should not be wasted in holding trial only to complete procedure. Accordingly, PE was closed on 20.04.2026.
4. Examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as nothing incriminating had come against him during the course of trial. Accused did not lead any DE. Accordingly, DE was closed.
Digitally signed by ARUSHIARUSHI PARWAL PARWAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:32:10 +0530 FIR No.: 0431/2017 PS Seema Puri 3/6 State v. Mohd. Khalid
5. Final arguments were heard on behalf of both parties and matter was reserved for pronouncement of judgment. Ld. APP for the State has pressed for disposal of case in terms of law. Ld. Counsel for accused has pressed for acquittal of accused.
6. As per the cardinal principle of criminal justice, accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the burden is on the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the alleged offence(s) had been committed by the accused. In the present case, as per the version of the prosecution, the complainant and the eye witnesses/ injured are the sole prosecution witnesses of the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused. Since their testimonies have not come on record against the accused, during the course of trial, the commission of alleged offences by the accused cannot be established. Facts like presence of the accused at the spot at the given date and time, commission of actus reus of offences for which accused has been charged with upon the person of the complainant, presence of requisite mens rea qua the mentioned offences, etc. could be proved only through the testimonies of the complainant and eye witnesses. Since their testimonies have not come on record, the prosecution can never prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
7. The remaining witnesses are only police/formal witnesses. Even considering that registration of the FIR, the arrest of the accused, MLC of the complainant/ injured and the investigation conducted have been proved by the remaining witnesses; still, the contents of FIR as well as Digitally signed by ARUSHI ARUSHI PARWAL PARWAL Date:
2026.04.21 16:32:19 +0530 FIR No.: 0431/2017 PS Seema Puri 4/6 State v. Mohd. Khalid commission of offence upon the person of the complainant by the accused have not been proved.
8. In view of above observations and findings, in the considered opinion of the court, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Mohd. Khalid is acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 341 IPC.
At request, previous bail bonds of the accused are hereby accepted as bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C.. The same are hereby accepted for a period of six months from today.
Ordered accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
Digitally signedAnnounced in open court ARUSHI by ARUSHI PARWAL on 21.04.2026 PARWAL Date: 2026.04.21 16:32:27 +0530 (ARUSHI PARWAL) Judicial Magistrate First Class-06 Shahdara District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi.
FIR No.: 0431/2017 PS Seema Puri 5/6 State v. Mohd. Khalid
Chart for witnesses examined
Prosecution witness no. Name of witness Description
NIL NIL NIL
Chart for exhibited documents
Exhibit no. Description of the Proved by/ Attested by
Exhibit
A1 FIR Admitted u/s 294
Cr.P.C. without
contents
A2 Certificate under Admitted u/s 294
Section 65B of Indian Cr.P.C. without
Evidence Act contents
A3 & A4 MLCs Admitted u/s 294
Cr.P.C. without
contents
Digitally signed
by ARUSHI
ARUSHI PARWAL
PARWAL Date:
2026.04.21
16:32:34 +0530
FIR No.: 0431/2017 PS Seema Puri 6/6 State v. Mohd. Khalid