Delhi District Court
State vs Rakesh Kumar on 23 February, 2026
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV GARG
GARG Date:
2026.02.23
17:09:33
+0530
THE COURT OF SH. VAIBHAV GARG, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-11, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Cr.Case No. 292617/2016
State Vs. Rakesh kumar
FIR No. 71/2013
PS Kashmere Gate
U/s. 186/332/353/506-II IPC
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission of offence : 29.03.2013
2) The name of the complainant : Sh. Rajesh Kumar
3) The name & parentage of accused : Rakesh Kumar S/o Late Sh. Bhudev Prasad
4) Offence complained of : u/S 186/332/353/506-II IPC
5) The plea of accused : Not guilty
6) Final order : Convicted u/S 353 IPC & 506-II IPC and Acquitted u/S 186 IPC and 332 IPC Date of institution of Case : 13.10.2015 Judgment reserved on : 06.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on : 23.02.2026 BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1. The accused in the present matter is facing trial for the offence under section 186/332/352/506-II IPC.
2. The story of the prosecution is that on 29.03.2013 at about 11 AM, in front of gate No. 5, Kashmiri Gate Metro Station at Shahdara flyover, the accused voluntarily obstructed, the public servant i.e. Ct. Rajesh Kumar in discharge of his public functions at the time when the FIR No. 71/2013 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Rakesh Kumar 1/12 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2026.02.23 17:09:40 +0530 complainant along with the staff was managing and was issuing challans to the vehicles without stand and the accused further used criminal force on the said public person as he asked the accused to remove his TSR bearing number DL1RM3609 in execution of his duty and the accused with an intent to prevent or deter the complainant from discharging his duty as a public servant, he voluntarily caused hurt to him and criminally intimidated the complainant by showing a pistol lighter.
3. The information of the incident was received in PS Kashmere Gate vide DD No. 19A dated 29.03.2013, pursuant to which the present FIR was lodged. After concluding the investigation, the present charge sheet was filed against the accused under sections186/332/352/506 IPC.
4. Charge was framed upon the accused as per para 1 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 04 witnesses.
5. PW-1 ASI Rajesh Kumar has deposed that on 29.03.2013 he was on duty with Zonal Officer, Md Akil Ahmed (PW-2) at ISBT Kashmiri Gate. He further deposed that ASI Akil Ahmed was issuing challans to the vehicles which were not parked properly near the bus stand and at about 11 AM, TSR bearing number DL1RM3609 came and parked his TSR in front of the bus stand. He further deposed that he instructed the driver to move the vehicle as it was causing inconvenience to the traffic, but the TCR driver did not pay any head to his instructions and became reluctant in moving his vehicle despite repeated requests. He FIR No. 71/2013 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Rakesh Kumar 2/12 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2026.02.23 17:09:47 +0530 further deposed that he called ASI Akil Ahmed, who decided to issue a challan to the accused and the accused was asked to handover the driving license and other documents upon which the driver became aggressive and said 'tum Mera challan kaise kar sakte Ho?' And used criminal force on them by pushing him and ASI Akil. He further deposed that the accused driver brought one pistol like weapon from his TSR and pointed the same on his shoulder and said ' Aaj tumhein Goli Maar Doonga aur Tumhara Kaam Tamam kar Doonga' and on this, he became scared and raised alarm for help, and accordingly ASI Akil, with the help of some public persons, managed to save him from the clutches of the accused. He further deposed that he immediately made a wireless call and sought immediate help from the traffic circle. He further deposed that the pistol like weapon was taken into possession and on checking the same it was found to be made of plastic and he further deposed that after sometime SI Ashok Kumar came to the spot and recorded his statement Ex. PW-1/A and on the basis of his statement, he prepared the rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Yogesh for registration of FIR. He further proved the site plan Ex. PW-1/B and the seizure memo Ex. PW-1/C of the TSR and seizure memo Ex. PW-1/D of plastic pistol. He further proved the arrest memo Ex. PW-1/E and personal search memo Ex. PW-1/F of the accused. He further identified the TSR through the photographs Ex. P1 (Colly). During cross-examination, he deposed that accused Rakesh was not known to him prior to the incident. He further deposed that he was in his official uniform at that time. He further denied all the suggestions put to him.
FIR No. 71/2013 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Rakesh Kumar 3/12 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2026.02.23 17:09:53 +0530
6. PW-2 Retd. ASI Akil Ahmed deposed that on 29.03.2013, he was posted as ZO at PS Civil Lines Traffic Circle and was on duty with Ct.
Rajesh (PW-1) and at about 11 AM, he was issuing challans to the vehicles, when TSR bearing registration number DL1RM3609 came there and parked his TSR in front of Metro Station gate No. 5 towards Seelampur. He further deposed that Ct. Rajesh instructed him to remove the vehicle immediately as it was causing inconvenience, but the TSR driver did not pay any head and became reluctant in moving his vehicle. He further deposed that Ct. Rajesh informed him about this and he decided to issue a challan to the accused. He further deposed that he asked the accused to handover his driving license and other documents, and on this, the driver became aggressive and said 'tum Mera challan kaise Karoge?' and used criminal force to Ct. Rajesh by pushing him, and then the driver brought one pistol like weapon from his TSR and pointed the same on the shoulder of Ct. Rajesh and said ' Aaj Main Tera Kaam kar Doonga' and upon this Ct. Rajesh shouted for help, and he along with some public persons manage to save Ct. Rajesh from the clutches of the accused, and then Ct. Rajesh immediately made a wireless call and sort immediate help from traffic circle civil lines. He further deposed that he seized the pistol like weapon, and in the meantime, SI Ashok Kumar along with Ct. Yogesh from PS Kashmiri Gate came at the spot and he handed over the custody of the accused as well as the pistol weapon to SI Ashok Kumar. If the deposed that Ct. Rajesh was sent to AAA Hospital for MLC and thereafter, his MLC was handed over to SI Ashok Kumar in his presence. He further deposed that SI Ashok FIR No. 71/2013 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Rakesh Kumar 4/12 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2026.02.23 17:10:04 +0530 Kumar recorded the statement of Ct. Rajesh and handed over the Tehrir to Ct. Yogesh for registration of FIR. He further deposed that after lodging of the FIR, SI Ashok Kumar, prepared the site plan at the instance of Ct. Rajesh. He further deposed that SI Ashok Kumar, seized the TSR and prepared the seizure memo in his presence. He further correctly identified the TSR. During cross-examination, he deposed that accused Rakesh was not known to him prior to the incident, and he was in his official uniform at that time. He further denied the suggestion put to him.
7. PW-3 ASI Ashutosh deposed that on 29.03.2013, he handed over five pages duty roaster after signing them and self-attested photocopies of staff departure DD entry to SI Ashok Kumar. During cross- examination, he denied all the suggestions put to him.
8. PW-4 SI Ashok Kumar deposed that on 29.03.2013, he received DD No. 19A and left for the spot along with Ct. Yogesh. He further deposed that he met ASI Akil Ahmed and Ct. Rajesh at the spot who produced the accused Rakesh, a TSR bearing registration number DL1RM3609, and one pistol. He further deposed that the said officials informed him that the accused fought with Ct. Rajesh gave him beating while the said Constable was discharging his duty, and he further informed that the accused had threatened to kill the him by showing him a pistol. He further deposed that the pistol was later on discovered to be a toy pistol, however, at the time of the incident, it seemed to be a regular pistol. He further deposed that he sent Ct.
Rajesh along with Ct. Yogesh for medical examination at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and he obtained the copy of the MLC. He further deposed FIR No. 71/2013 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Rakesh Kumar 5/12 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2026.02.23 17:10:11 +0530 that he recorded the statement of the victim, Ct. Rajesh Ex. PW-1/A and prepared the rukka Ex. PW-4/A on the said complaint and handed over the same to Ct. Yogesh for registration of FIR. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, he prepared the site plan Ex. PW-1/B at the instance of Ct. Rajesh and he prepared the sketch memo of the pistol on a blank paper Ex. PW-4/B. He further deposed that he seized the said pistol vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/D and he seized the TSR vide Ex. PW-1/B and arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/E and conducted this personal search vide personal search memo Ex. PW-1/F. He further deposed that he obtained the duty roaster of victim, Ct. Rajesh and the departure DD entry No. 7 from the officer. He further deposed that he obtained the sanction under section 195 CRPC. He further correctly identified the pistol, Ex. PX1. During cross-examination, he deposed that when he reached at the spot, the toy gun was in the hands of ASI Akil Ahmed and Ct. Rajesh was also present with Akil Ahmed and the accused. He further deposed that he does not remember if any injuries were mentioned in the MLC of Ct. Rakesh. He further deposed that MLC of ASI Akil Ahmed was not conducted. He denied all the suggestions put to him.
9. After the examination of witnesses, the statement of the accused under section 313 CrPC was recorded where in the accused person has baldly denied all the incriminating evidence and has pleaded false implication. The accused has pleaded innocence. However, the accused has not led any defence evidence.
10. During the final arguments, Ld. Addl. PP for State has argued that through the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as well as the FIR No. 71/2013 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Rakesh Kumar 6/12 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2026.02.23 17:10:17 +0530 other documentary evidence on record, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Ld. Addl. PP for the state has prayed that the accused be convicted for the offences under section 186/332/352/506 Part-II IPC.
11. Per contra, R S Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that there is no material on record to support the charges framed against the accused. He has argued that the prosecution has failed to examine any independent public witness in the present matter. He further argued that the remaining witness are police witnesses and conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of the police witnesses. He also argued that the toy pistol was planted on the accused as the accused did not yield to the demand of illegal gratification of the complainant. He has further argued that the prosecution has failed to connect the accused with the alleged accident, and thus he pleads that the accused in the present matter, be acquitted of all the charges.
12. The Points that arise for consideration in the present matter are as follows:
(i) Whether on 29.03.2013 at about 11 AM, in front of gate No. 5, Kashmiri Gate Metro Station at Shahdara flyover, the accused voluntarily obstructed the complainant, a public servant, in discharge of his public functions?
(ii) Whether on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused with the intent to prevent or deter the complainant, a public servant, in discharge of his duty, caused hurt to him?
FIR No. 71/2013 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Rakesh Kumar 7/12 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2026.02.23 17:10:23 +0530
(iii) Whether on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused with the intent to prevent or deter the complainant, a public servant, in discharge of his duty, assaulted or used criminal force to him?
(iv) Whether on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused threatened the complainant to kill him and thereby criminally intimidated the complainant?
13. All the points are being considered together since the evidence is intrinsically connected.
14. From the perusal of the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, it is clear that the identity of the accused is not disputed. It is also established that when PW-2 decided to issue a challan to the accused, he became aggressive and said how can you issue challan to me and while saying so he used criminal force on Ct. Rajesh (PW-1) by pushing him. It is also established that the accused brought one pistol like weapon from his TSR and pointed the same at PW-1 and said 'today I will finish you' and on this Ct. Rajesh shouted for help.
15. PW-3 has proved the duty roaster dated 29.03.2013. Perusal of the said duty roster reveals that on 29.03.2013, PW-2 ASI Akil Ahmed was deputed at CLC-7, ISBT Chowk Boulevard Road, along with Ct. Rajesh (PW-1).
16. Upon perusal of the duty roster, it is established that PW-1 and PW-2 are public servants who were present on the spot of incident in discharge of their lawful duty.
17. Further, the defence has failed to bring on record any rhyme or reason to attribute any motive of false implication on the witness PW-1 and PW-2. In fact, during cross-examination of the said witnesses, it has FIR No. 71/2013 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Rakesh Kumar 8/12 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2026.02.23 17:10:28 +0530 come on record that the accused was not known to them prior to the date of incident.
18. Section 186 IPC provides punishment for 'obstructing public servant in discharge of public function'. In the said provision the expression whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in discharge of his public function is used. The word 'obstruction' is not confined to physical obstruction. It need not be an act of criminal force. The act need not be a violent one. It is enough if the act complained of results in preventing a public servant in discharge of his lawful duties. Any act of causing impediment by unlawfully preventing public servant in discharge of his functions would be enough to attract section 186 IPC.
19. There is certain precondition attached with prosecution of section 186 IPC. U/s 195(1)(a) CrPC there is an express bar for the court to take cognizance of offence punishable u/S 186 IPC and provides that there shall be a complaint made in writing by the public servant or by any other public servant to whom he is subordinate. It had been held that 'non-compliance of the requirements of section 195 CrPC is fatal to the prosecution for offence punishable u/S 186 IPC.' In the present case, the written complaint u/s 195 CrPC Ex. A-2 has already been placed on record.
20. PW-1 has categorically deposed that the accused became aggressive and said 'tum Mera challan kaise kar sakte Ho' and pushed him. However, the prosecution's case is completely silent on the aspect as to whether the challan was finally issued to the accused or not. Since, PW-1 & PW-2, being public servants were present at the spot, discharging their duty of issuing challans to the vehicles which were FIR No. 71/2013 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Rakesh Kumar 9/12 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV GARG VAIBHAV Date:
GARG 2026.02.23
17:10:34
+0530
not parked properly, and in the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that the accused actually prevented the issuance of challan or caused any effective obstruction in discharge of official duty, it cannot be concluded that the accused caused any obstruction to PW-1 or PW-2 in discharge of their duty. The mere act of questioning authority or showing reluctance, in absence of proof that official duty was actually impeded, is insufficient to sustain conviction under Section 186 IPC. The benefit of doubt must therefore go to the accused for this charge. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of the accused qua the offence u/S 186 IPC.
21. However, the act of the accused of pushing a public servant during discharge of official duty, coupled with aggressive conduct and brandishing of a pistol-like object is squarely covered within the ambit of the offence u/S 353 IPC. The prosecution has fully established that the accused had turned aggressive when PW-2 decided to issue him a challan and he pushed PW-1. PW-1 and PW-2 have corroborated each other on the aforesaid aspect. The offence under Section 353 IPC does not require proof of injury. The use of criminal force with intent to deter a public servant from discharge of duty is sufficient. The prosecution has successfully established these ingredients beyond reasonable doubt.
22. Perusal of the MLC No. 683/2013 of PW-1 reveals that he did not suffer any injury and it also not the case of the prosecution that any hurt was caused to any person. In view of the fact that no hurt, as defined under Section 319 IPC, has been caused to any person, the FIR No. 71/2013 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Rakesh Kumar 10/12 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2026.02.23 17:10:40 +0530 charge u/S 332 IPC cannot be sustained and thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
23. As regards the charge u/S 506-II IPC, it is clear from the case of the prosecution that the accused had pointed out a pistol on PW-1 and had uttered that he will kill him. PW-1 has categorically deposed that the accused stated, "Aaj tumhein goli maar doonga aur tumhara kaam tamam kar doonga." PW-2 has corroborated this version in material particulars and stated that the accused pointed the pistol-like object towards the shoulder of PW-1 and threatened him.
24. It is true that upon seizure and examination, the pistol was found to be a toy pistol made of plastic. However, the determinative factor for the purpose of Section 506 IPC is not whether the weapon was real, but whether the accused intended to cause alarm to the complainant and whether such threat was of such a nature as to cause apprehension of death or grievous hurt. PW-4 has deposed that at the time of the incident the pistol appeared to be a regular firearm. PW-1 has stated that he became frightened and raised alarm for help. The element of alarm is therefore evident from the testimony.
25. The defence has argued that the toy pistol was planted upon the accused. However, this plea remains a bald assertion as nothing has been substantiated through any defence evidence. Further, the defence has failed to demonstrate any motive on the part of PW-1 or PW-2 to falsely implicate the accused in a serious offence involving threat to life.
26. The threat allegedly extended by the accused was a threat to cause death inasmuch as the words attributed to him clearly fall within the FIR No. 71/2013 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Rakesh Kumar 11/12 ambit of Part-II of Section 506 IPC. The subsequent discovery that the pistol was a toy does not reduce the culpability of the act at the time of commission, when it appeared to be a genuine firearm and was used to terrorise a public servant performing official duty. Thus, the prosecution has proved that the accused intended to cause alarm and did in fact cause alarm to PW-1.
27. Accordingly, the accused Rakesh Kumar S/o Late Sh. Bhudev Prasad is convicted of the offence punishable u/S 353 IPC and 506-II IPC. However, he is acquitted of the offence punishable u/S 186 IPC and 332 IPC.
28. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date: 2026.02.23 17:10:47 +0530 Announced in the open court (VAIBHAV GARG) today. Judicial Magistrate First Class-11/
Central District/Tis Hazari Courts/ Delhi 23.02.2026 [This judgment contains 12 pages and each page bears the signature of undersigned ] Digitally signed by VAIBHAV GARG VAIBHAV Date:
GARG 2026.02.23
17:10:51
(VAIBHAV GARG)
+0530
Judicial Magistrate First Class-11/
Central District/Tis Hazari Courts/ Delhi 23.02.2026 FIR No. 71/2013 PS Kashmere Gate State Vs. Rakesh Kumar 12/12