Delhi District Court
Fir No.1100/21 State vs . Amarpreet Page 1 Of 4 on 27 September, 2022
DLWT020266582022
Presented on : 27-09-2022
Registered on : 27-09-2022
Decided on : 27-09-2022
Duration : 0 years, 0 months, 0 days
IN THE COURT OF
Metropolitan Magistrate
AT West,WEST DELHI
(Presided Over by MS. DEVANSHI JANMEJA)
Cr. Case/11954/2022
FIR No. 1100/21
(PROSECUTION):
STATE
Through Police Station Officer Rajouri Garden
1100 , PS RAJOURI GARDEN,DELHI, RAJOURI GARDEN, WEST,
DELHI, INDIA
VERSUS
AMARPREET SINGH
R/o F-8, RAJOURI GARDEN, NEW DELHI, RAJOURI GARDEN, WEST,
DELHI, INDIA
APPEARANCES
Ld. Substitute APP for the State.
Accused in person.
Offence punishable under :
188/269 IPC
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 27-09-2022) FIR No.1100/21 State Vs. Amarpreet Page 1 of 4 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION :
Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28.12.2021 at 12.01 pm at S 52 Janta Market Ammey's Bake House, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of police station Rajouri Garden accused was opened his Ammey's Bake House during lockdown and did not comply the order of DDMA Guidelines dated 27.12.2021 and thereby have committed an offences punishable U/s 188/269 IPC
2. After summoning of accused and after compliance of the provisions of section 207 Cr. P.C, the notice was framed against accused today itself i.e. 27.09.2022 U/s 188/269 IPC to which accused not pleaded guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the case, Prosecution cited as many as 04 witnesses in total and out of those 01 witness got examined. Thereafter, accused admitted the FIR i.e. Ex. P1 and at request of Ld. APP for the State, remaining witnesses dropped and P.E. closed thereafter.
4. Prosecution got examined PW-1 HC Anil Kumar who deposed that on 28.12.2021, I was posted at PS Rajouri Garden as HC. On that day, FIR No.1100/21 State Vs. Amarpreet Page 2 of 4 he was on patrolling duty alongwith Ct. Anand. They were found that one Ammey's Bake House was opened at S 52 Janta Market Ammey's Bake House, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi during lockdown and did not comply the order of DDMA Guidelines dated 27.12.2021. The owner of the said restaurant Amarpreet was also present there. He interrogated the accused/owner but he had not given any satisfactory answer. Accordingly, he prepared the rukka which is Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point A and same was handed over to Ct. Anand for registration of FIR. Accordingly, he went to the PS and got the present FIR registered. In the meantime, Ct. Anand also came at the spot with original rukka and copy of FIR. He served the notice u/s 41 A CrPC upon the accused and was released. He also prepared the site plan of the spot i.e. Ex. PW-1/B bearing his signature at point A. He recorded the statement of Ct. Anand. Witness correctly identified the accused present in the court.
5. P.E. was closed thereafter.
6. On 26.09.2022, the statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. got recorded in which accused wished to not lead any D.E.
7. Arguments advanced at length by both the sides.
FIR No.1100/21 State Vs. Amarpreet Page 3 of 4
8. It is observed by this court that PW1 deposed in terms of story of prosecution but the accused not cross examined the witness despite having all the opportunity with him. PW1 has specifically proved the rukka as Ex. PW1/A and has correctly identified the accused as the landlord of the restaurant who was opened his Ammey's Bake House during lockdown and did not comply the order of DDMA Guidelines dated 27.12.2021 but the accused not asked even single question regarding the same. The registration of FIR and arrest of accused is mere veracity to the procedure adopted by the investigating agency. The PW1 has specifically deposed that the accused has not comply the order of DDMA Guidelines dated 27.12.2021. The deposition made by PW1 has specifically proved that the accused disobeyed the directions issued and has committed the offence U/s 188 IPC, hence, the prosecution has successfully proved the charges U/s 188 IPC against the accused - Amarpreet.
9. In view of above observations, accused AMARPREET is convicted for the offence punished u/s 188 I.P.C. in the present case FIR.
Copy of this judgment be given dasti to the convict free of cost. Digitally signed by DEVANSHI
DEVANSHI JANMEJA
JANMEJA Date: 2022.09.27
14:28:51 +0530
Announced in the open Court (DEVANSHI JANMEJA)
on this 27th Day of September 2022 MM (West)-02/THC
27.09.2022
FIR No.1100/21 State Vs. Amarpreet Page 4 of 4