Delhi District Court
State vs Praveen Metha on 14 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Ms. DIVYA ARORA:
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04: NORTH-WEST
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 365/2019
PS Keshav Puram
State Vs. Praveen Mehta
Date of Institution: 02.03.2021
Date of Judgment: 14.07.2025
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 2567/2021
(b) Date of commission of offence : 20.10.2019
(c) Name of the complainant : Smt. Renu Mehta
(d) Name of Accused, his : Praveen Mehta
parentage & residence S/o Late Sh. Krishan Kumar,
R/o 1474/102, Ganesh Pura-A,
Tri Nagar, Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s: 323/341/506/509 IPC
(f) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final order : Acquitted
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1) The present case arises out of FIR No. 365/2019 registered under Sections 323, 341, 506, and 509 IPC, wherein it is alleged that on 20.10.2018, between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM, at 1474/102, Ganesh Pura-A, Tri Nagar, Keshav Puram, Delhi, the accused Praveen Mehta wrongfully restrained the complainant, Renu Mehta, voluntarily FIR No. 365/2019 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/341/506/509 IPC State Vs . Praveen Mehta Page No. 1 of 9 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.07.14 16:54:52 +0530 caused simple hurt to her, uttered abusive words intending to insult her modesty, and criminally intimidated her and her family members. The prosecution invoked offences punishable under Sections 323/341/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code.
2) After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in Court, cognizance of the offences was taken, the abovesaid accused was summoned and after that, he entered appearance, copy of the chargesheet alongwith the documents was supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3) Charge was then framed against the accused on 22.12.2022 for the commission of offences under Section 323/341/506/509 IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, and matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 03 witnesses.
5) PW-1 Smt. Renu Mehta W/o Sh. Vijay Mehta deposed that on 20.10.2019, in the stairs of first floor of their house, accused Parveen Mehta started manhandling and abusing her husband, and on hearing the noises of accused Parveen Mehta, she went there to save her husband from the accused Parveen Mehta, then accused wrongfully restrained her and started abusing her in filthy language and misbehaved with her and also pushed her due to which she fallen down on ground. Accused also told her to withdraw the case u/s 354 IPC which is pending against the accused in Rohini Court, otherwise FIR No. 365/2019 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/341/506/509 IPC State Vs . Praveen Mehta Page No. 2 of 9 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.07.14 16:54:59 +0530 he will kill her and her family members. Thereafter, accused went from there and broke her scooter which was parked outside the ground floor. Thereafter, she made 100 number call. After 30 minutes police came there and she narrated the whole incident to the police. Thereafter, she alongwith her husband and police officials went to the PS where she made a complaint against the accused Parveen Mehta which is Ex.PW1/A. On the same day in the evening, police officials came at the house of Smt. Renu Mehta and they took her husband to Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital for his medical examination and in the hospital, medical examination of her husband was conducted. She further deposed that during investigation, she was called by the IO to PS where IO arrested and personally searched the accused vide memos Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. On 03.12.2019, statement of Smt. Renu Mehta u/s 164 Cr.PC was also recorded before the Ld. MM which is Ex.PW1/D. She further deposed that accused Parveen Mehta also abused her, my husband and her son and run towards them to beat. She identified the accused in the court.
6) PW-2 Vijay Mehta deposed that on 20.10.2019 between 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. he alongwith his wife were going downstairs, in the meanwhile, accused Praveen Mehta forcefully entered into his house and started man handling and abusing them. Accused Praveen Mehta started beating them by kicks and fists blows and due to the said beatings, Vijay Mehta and his wife sustained injuries on face, head and other body parts. Accused Praveen Mehta also beat the wife of Vijay Mehta and due to which his wife fell down and sustained injuries on her face and head. Accused told Vijay Mehta and his wife to withdraw FIR No. 365/2019 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/341/506/509 IPC State Vs . Praveen Mehta Page No. 3 of 9 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.07.14 16:55:03 +0530 the case u/s 354-A and 354-B IPC which is pending against accused in Rohini Court, otherwise he will kill them. Thereafter, accused fled away from the spot. Wife of Vijay Mehta made a call at 100 number and after 30 minutes, police came there and took Vijay Mehta and his wife to Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital for medical examination. On the next day i.e. 21.10.2019, he alongwith his wife went to PS and gave complaints against the accused. Police also recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr. P.C. He further deposed that the oblique motive for all this is the property dispute wherein the accused has been disowned already but the accused Praveen Mehta yearns for it. He further submits that accused Praveen Mehta wrongfully restrained him and his wife and thereafter, accused started beating them. He also identified the accused Praveen Mehta in the Court.
7) PW-3 Retd. SI Prem Pal Sharma / IO deposed that on 20.10.2019, he was posted at PS Keshav Puram as SI and on that day, upon receiving DD no. 23-A already Ex.X2/A, he alongwith Ct. Ajeet went to the spot i.e. H.No. 1474/102, Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar, Delhi and came to know that there was quarrel between two brother and their wives, and injured was shifted to hospital through PCR vehicle. IO made inquiry there and sent Ct. Ajeet to the hospital where he obtained MLC bearing no. 6017/19 dated 20.10.2019 of Vijay Mehta and handed over the same to the IO, and upon which the injury was opined as simple. Thereafter, on 21.10.2019, wife of complainant namely Renu Mehta came and gave complaint regarding the incident happened on 20.10.2019 which is Ex.PW1/A. IO inquired upon the complaint and on 22.10.2019, IO prepared tehrir Ex.PW3/A, and during FIR No. 365/2019 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/341/506/509 IPC State Vs . Praveen Mehta Page No. 4 of 9 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.07.14 16:55:10 +0530 investigation, complainant also informed the IO that one FIR u/s 354 IPC was also registered against the accused due to which the incident happened on 20.10.2019. He further deposed that on 08.11.2019, he arrested and personally searched the accused vide memos Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C in front of Renu Mehta and the accused was released on bail, and had bound down the accused vide Pabandinama Ex.PW3/B. On 03.12.2019, statement u/s 164 Cr.PC of complainant Renu Mehta was got done and same is ExPW1/D, and application regarding the same is Mark-A. Thereafter, IO prepared chargesheet and filed the same before the Court. IO also prepared site plan which is Ex.PW3/C. He identified the accused in the court.
8) During the course of trial, the accused, in his statement under Section 294 Cr.PC, admitted the FIR No. 365/2019 PS Keshav Puram is Ex.Y-1, Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.Y-2, GD No. 23-A is Ex.Y-2/A, MLC No. 006017/2019 dated 20.10.2019 of patient Vijay Mehta is Ex.Y-3 and statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC of witness Renu Mehta dated 03.12.2019 is already Ex.PW1/D. Hence the relevant witnesses i.e. ASI Mahender (Duty Officer), Sh. Virender Singh (Ld. MM), Dr. Patel (CMO, Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital) were dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses.
9) Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of accused was recorded under Section 281 read with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused who maintained his innocence. Accused person stated that "I have been falsely implicated and I have FIR No. 365/2019 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/341/506/509 IPC State Vs . Praveen Mehta Page No. 5 of 9 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.07.14 16:55:17 +0530 not done any quarrel with complainant and her husband. The other case u/s 354 IPC filed by the complainant against me was the false case and I was acquitted in that case on 31.08.2022." Accused has chosen to lead defence evidence.
10) Accused examined himself as DW-1 and Sh. Chirag was examined as DW-2, and they were duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
11) Final arguments as advanced by the Ld APP for the State and by Ld. counsel for the accused have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record.
12) It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the State to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence and it is for the prosecution to ensure that its case is able to stand on its own legs. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness of the defence of the accused if any. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
13) Prosecution in support of its case examined three witnesses, including the complainant (PW1), husband of complainant (PW2) and the Investigating Officer (PW3). The crux of the prosecution's case rests upon the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3, who are stated to be the material witnesses of the incident.
FIR No. 365/2019 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/341/506/509 IPC State Vs . Praveen Mehta Page No. 6 of 9 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.07.14 16:55:23 +0530
14) Ld counsel for the accused has argued that the FIR is a counterblast to FIR No. 364/2019, in which PW2 himself is an accused. It is further submitted that another FIR No. 550/2017 is pending against PW2, indicating a history of false complaints between the parties. This submission is significant as it seeks to establish a background of enmity and mutual allegations, suggesting the possibility of a false implication.
15) Ld counsel has further taken this Court through the testimony of PW2 to highlight inconsistencies. In his examination-in-chief, PW2 stated that the accused forcibly entered through the main door and inflicted injuries upon him and his wife. However, during cross-examination, PW2 admitted that he had not stated any such fact in his statement under Section 161 CrPC recorded by the IO. This omission is material and goes to the root of the prosecution's case. It is a settled principle of law that material improvements and contradictions, especially those relating to the manner of assault, cast serious doubt on the credibility of the witness. In State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Singh, (2009) 11 SCC 106, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if improvements made in Court are material and not minor in nature, they erode the veracity of the prosecution version.
16) Further, PW3 also did not lend much support to the prosecution.
During his cross-examination, he admitted that the incident occurred in a residential locality. Despite that, no independent public witness has been cited or examined by the prosecution. The absence of public witnesses, though not fatal in every case, assumes importance here FIR No. 365/2019 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/341/506/509 IPC State Vs . Praveen Mehta Page No. 7 of 9 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.07.14 16:55:28 +0530 considering the nature of allegations and the location of the alleged incident. In Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 204, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that where no independent witness is examined without any reasonable explanation, the prosecution version becomes suspect.
17) The accused has examined himself in defence and also led the evidence of DW2, Chirag, to show that on the day of the alleged incident, he was in fact assaulted by Vijay Mehta, Manav Mehta, and Gulshan Mehta, regarding which FIR No. 364/2019 was registered. These facts lend credence to the defence plea that the present FIR may have been lodged with a view to counter the said allegations and to gain an upper hand in the ongoing animosity.
18) It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.
19) In the present case, the testimony of the complainant is riddled with improvements and omissions, there is absence of independent corroboration, and the defence version appears plausible in the context of admitted cross-litigation between the parties. Considering the totality of circumstances and in view of the settled law, it would be unsafe to convict the accused solely on the basis of such doubtful and FIR No. 365/2019 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/341/506/509 IPC State Vs . Praveen Mehta Page No. 8 of 9 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA 16:55:39 +0530 Date: 2025.07.14 uncorroborated testimony.
Decision:
20) Accordingly, the accused Praveen Mehta S/o Late Sh. Krishan Kumar is acquitted for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 506, 509 IPC in the present case.
21) Accused is directed to furnish bail bond and personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- under section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when notice is served upon them.
22) File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 14.07.2025.
DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.07.14 16:55:47 +0530 (DIVYA AORA) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/ North West Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 09 pages and each page bears my signature.
DIVYA Digitally signed by
DIVYA ARORA
ARORA Date: 2025.07.14
16:55:52 +0530
(DIVYA AORA)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/ North West Rohini District Court/New Delhi FIR No. 365/2019 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/341/506/509 IPC State Vs . Praveen Mehta Page No. 9 of 9