Delhi District Court
State vs Parveen Yadav on 22 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEKSHA SETHI, JMFC-08,
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. : DLSW02-063182-2022
ID. No. : 13220/2022
FIR No. : 805/2021
U/s : 14 C Foreigners Act
P.S. : Uttam Nagar
State v/s Parveen Yadav
a) Name & address of the : SI Data Ram Meena
complainant
b) Name & address of : Parveen Yadav
accused s/o Sh Kartar Yadav
r/o Hno. 303, Hastsal
Village, Pardhan Wali
Gali, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
c) Date of Commission of : 05.11.2021
offence
d) Offence complained of : 14C Foreigners Act
e) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
f) Final Order : Acquitted.
g) Date of Institution : 02.11.2022
h) Judgment Pronounced on : 22.01.2026
JUDGMENT
Brief facts
1. The prosecution version in brief is that on 05.11.2021, accused Parveen Yadav was found to have inducted foreign nationals namely Ugochu Kweu, Chidi Nwododo, Paul, Mathew Emeka, Felis, Osita Odalo Nelson, Uttard, Marcel John, Emmanuel, David, Kelechi Ibealisi State v/s Parveen Yadav Page 1 Cr. Case No. 13220/2022 Zephaniah and Patrick as tenant at house no. D-110, Hastal Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. The said foreign nationals did not possess any valid Visa to stay in India. The case against accused Parveen Yadav is thus, that he had abetted the offence u/s 14A of Foreigners' Act.
2. The complainant SI Dataram Meena informed about the said incident to the duty officer at the police station and an FIR bearing no. 805/2021 u/s 14C of Foreigners' Act was registered at PS Uttam Nagar. Investigation of the case was conducted by Investigating Officer SI Data Ram Meena and ASI Raj Kumar.
Proceedings before the Court
3. On completion of investigation, a chargesheet u/s 14C of Foreigners' Act was filed against the present accused, i.e., Parveen Yadav. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was summoned to face trial.
4. On his appearance, a copy of chargesheet along with documents were supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC'). On finding prima facie case against the accused, a charge under section 14C of Foreigners' Act was framed against him, to which he had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During the trial, prosecution has examined the following witnesses:
State v/s Parveen Yadav Page 2
Cr. Case No. 13220/2022
(i) PW-1 ASI Rajesh Kumar has deposed that on
05.11.2021, he was posted as head constable at PS Uttam Nagar. On that day, he alongwith Ct. Sidharth and SI Dataram went for patrolling vide DD no. 114A. At around 6.20 pm, they reached at D Block, House no. D-110, Hastsal Vihar, Delhi and found 12 foreign nationals were present there. SI Dataram demanded from them to show their valid VISA and passport but they replied to show it at the police station. Thereafter, police team apprehended them and took all of them to the PS Uttam Nagar. Those foreign nationals failed to produce any valid VISA and passport at the police station. Thereafter, complainant prepared tehrir in the present case. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement in the present case U/s 161 CrPC. Witness correctly identified the accused. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
(ii) PW-2 SI Data Ram has deposed that on 05.11.2021, he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as sub inspector. On that day, he alongwith HC Rajesh and Ct. Sidharth were on patrolling duty vide DD no. 114A. He did not remember the exact time of his patrolling duty. While partrolling, when they reached at Hastsal Village, they saw 12 foreigners were present there. Thereafter, they made enquiry from the foreigners and they disclosed their names, however, State v/s Parveen Yadav Page 3 Cr. Case No. 13220/2022 he does not remember their names. On further enquiry, these foreigners disclosed that they were not having any valid VISA and they disclosed that they were residing in the house of Praveen Yadav as tenant. Thereafter, foreigners called the landlord Praveen Yadav at the spot. Praveen Yadav came to the spot and told him that he had inducted all these foreigners as tenant in his house knowing that they were not having any valid VISA with them. Thereafter, he got registered FIR 802/2021 U/s 14A Foreigners Act against the foreigners and after discussing with his senior Officers. He also filed case against the accused Praveen Yadav U/s 14C Foreigners Act. Thereafter, further investigation was assigned to another police officers ASI Hariman. Witness correctly identified the accused. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State as well as by Ld. Defence counsel.
(iii) PW-3 retired ASI Raj Kumar has deposed that on 25.11.2021, he was posted as ASI at PS Uttam Nagar. On that day, the present case was marked to him by duty officer. On 15.12.2021, he reached at D-110, Hastsal Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi where accused was found and after inquiry from him, he prepared site plan (Ex. PW3/A) and he gave notice U/s 41A CrPC to accused (Ex. PW3/B). Accused came to the police station where he was interrogated State v/s Parveen Yadav Page 4 Cr. Case No. 13220/2022 and his interrogation statement (Ex. PW3/C). Thereafter, SHO was apprised regarding the case. He recorded the statement of witnesses U/s 161 CrPC. He completed the investigation, prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before court. The electricity bill and Adhar card of accused were exhibited as Ex. P-2 (Colly). Witness correctly identified the accused. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
(iv) PW-4 SI Hariman has deposed that on 10.11.2021, he was marked the investigation of the present case. During the time, when the investigation was with him, he recorded the statement of witnesses HC Rajesh and Ct. Siddharth U/s 161 Cr.P.C. On 16.11.2021, he was transferred from the P.S Uttam Nagar to P.S. J.P. Kalan. He deposited the case file with MHCR. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
6. Vide separate statement of the accused u/s 294 CrPC, she had admitted the genuineness of the FIR no. 805/2021 and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The above-said documents were exhibited as Ex. X-1 and Ex. X-2 respectively. Accordingly, the concerned witnesses were dropped by the prosecution.
7. The prosecution evidence was closed and thereafter the statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC r/w section 281 CrPC State v/s Parveen Yadav Page 5 Cr. Case No. 13220/2022 was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to him, which he had denied to be correct and submitted that he was innocent and falsely implicated. The accused chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.
8. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that it is clear from the statement of the complainant and other witnesses as well as the documents appearing on record that the accused had allowed the foreign nationals namely Ugochu Kweu, Chidi Nwododo, Paul, Mathew Emeka, Felis, Osita Odalo Nelson, Uttard, Marcel John, Emmanuel, David, Kelechi Ibealisi Zephaniah and Patrick, who did not possess valid Visa to stay in India, to reside as tenant at his property and thus, he had abetted the offence u/s 14A of Foreigners' Act. He has thus, submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and he be, therefore, held guilty and convicted for the offence u/s 14C of Foreigners' Act.
9. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and since nothing incriminating has appeared against the accused, he be, therefore, acquitted for the offence charged.
10. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel at length, perused the record, gone through the State v/s Parveen Yadav Page 6 Cr. Case No. 13220/2022 relevant provisions of law and given my thoughts to the matter.
Findings of the Court
11.It is a well settled principle of criminal law that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
12.Let this Court first discuss the provisions of law which are involved in the present case. Section-14A of the Foreigners Act deals with the offence of entering or staying in India without valid documents required for such entry i.e. visa etc. It reads as under:
"14A. Penalty for entry in restricted areas, etc. --
Whoever. --
(a) enters into any area in India, which is restricted for his entry under any order made under this Act, or any direction given in pursuance thereof, without obtaining a permit from the authority, notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, for this purpose or remains in such area beyond the period specified in such permit for his stay; or
(b) enters into or stays in any area in India without the valid documents required for such entry or for such stay, as the case may be, under the provisions of any order made under this Act or any direction given in pursuance thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years, but may extend to eight years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees; and if he has entered into a bond in pursuance of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of section 3, his bond shall be forfeited, and any person bound thereby shall pay the penalty thereof, or show cause to the satisfaction of the convicting court why such penalty should not be paid by him."
State v/s Parveen Yadav Page 7 Cr. Case No. 13220/2022
13.Further, if any person aids or abets in the commission of the offence punishable u/s 14A Foreigners Act, then the said person is said to have committed offence u/s 14C of Foreigners Act. The said section reads as under:
"14C. Penalty for abetment. --Whoever abets any offence punishable under section 14 or section 14A or section 14B shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence."
14.In order to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case, the prosecution is required to establish that the accused has actively aided a foreign national to enter or remain in India without having valid documents i.e. visa, passport etc. The scope and ambit of the offence punishable u/s 14C of the Foreigners Act has been discussed in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Abinash Dixit vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.267 of 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.) No.2266 of 2020) dated 22.02.2022, wherein the Apex Court has held that the accused must have been aware about the status of visa of a foreign national in order to draw an inference that he/she has aided or abetted the commission of offence punishable u/s 14, 14A or 14B of the Foreigners Act. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:
"The word 'abet' is an essential ingredient of Section 14-C, and has received judicial interpretation. 'Abet' means to aid, to encourage or countenance. An abetment of the offence occurs when a person State v/s Parveen Yadav Page 8 Cr. Case No. 13220/2022 instigates any person to do that offence or engages with another person(s) in doing that thing. Mere passivity and insouciance will not tantamount to offence of abetment."
In the instant case, it should be noted that the prosecution has brought no evidence on record to prove that it was the accused Parveen Yadav who had inducted any foreign national on his property as his tenant. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution were official witnesses. Their entire testimonies are based on the statement given by the said foreign nationals who were never examined by the prosecution during the course of the trial. Even the public persons of the locality were not examined during the course of the investigation.
15.Moreover, the prosecution did not prove any document to show that the accused Parveen Yadav was the owner of the property situated at D-110, Hastal Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, where the foreign nationals were allegedly found to be residing on rent without having valid visa or passport. Even the complainant/ IO PW-2 SI Data Ram or second IO PW3 retired ASI Raj Kumar in their testimony did not specifically depose that the said address belonged to the accused. PW-3 has placed on record one electricity bill and Aadhar card of accused showing his address to be that of D-110C, Hastal Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi,however, the said document does not help the prosecution to prove that the accused was the landlord at the given premises and he had inducted some foreign State v/s Parveen Yadav Page 9 Cr. Case No. 13220/2022 nationals as his tenant, who did not possess any valid visa. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove this material fact beyond reasonable doubts.
16.Be that as it may, even if it is assumed that the accused Parveen Yadav is the owner of the said property and has given the said property on rent to foreign nationals, the same would not automatically mean that he has abetted or aided in the commission of the offence punishable u/s 14A of the Foreigners Act for the reason that it is imperative for the prosecution to prove that the accused was aware or had knowledge about the fact that the said foreign nationals had entered in India without a valid visa, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled Abinash Dixit (supra). If this awareness or knowledge is not proved/established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts, then the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 14C of the Foreigners Act. In the present case, the prosecution has not brought any material on record to prove that the accused had the knowledge that the foreign nationals, whom he is inducting as tenants do not possess valid visa for their stay in India.
17.It is observed that the complainant as well as the first IO in the present case is the same police official. Thus, the initial proceedings prior to registration of FIR and the subsequent investigation were carried out by the same official. In Mohan Lal Vs. State of State of Punjab, (2018) SCC Online SC 974, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
State v/s Parveen Yadav Page 10 Cr. Case No. 13220/2022 "If an informant police official in a criminal prosecution, especially when carrying a reverse burden of proof, makes the allegations, is himself asked to investigate, serious doubts will naturally arise with regard to his fairness and impartiality. It is not necessary that bias must actually be proved. It would be illogical to presume and contrary to normal human conduct, that he would at the end of the investigation submit a closure report to conclude false implication with all its attendant consequences for the complainant himself. The result of the investigation would therefore be a foregone conclusion. It is therefore held that a fair investigation, which is but the very foundation of a fair trial, necessarily postulates that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. Justice must not only be done but must appear to be done also. Any possibility of bias or a predetermined conclusion has to be excluded. This requirement is all the more imperative in-laws carrying a reverse burden of proof."
(Emphasis supplied)
18.Thus, it is a settled proposition of law that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. In the present case, SI Data Ram is the complainant as well as the first IO of the present case and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the same raises doubts over the nature of investigation carried out and thus, creates a dent on the prosecution version.
19. Thus, in light of the above discussion which throws doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution version, this court is of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused had allowed some foreign nationals, who did not possess proper documents to stay in India, as tenants at his property and thus, abetted State v/s Parveen Yadav Page 11 Cr. Case No. 13220/2022 the offence punishable u/s 14A of Foreigners' Act. The accused Parveen Yadav is, therefore, acquitted of the offence u/s 14C of Foreigners' Act.
20.As per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) v/s State of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No(s). 2973 of 2023, (2025 INSC 1433) dated 15.12.2025, the charts for witnesses examined and exhibited documents (including admitted documents) are attached as Appendix A and B respectively and run as follows:
Appendix A Chart of witnesses Prosecution Name of witness Description witness No. PW-1 ASI Rajesh Kumar Eye witness PW-2 SI Data Ram Complainant as well as IO PW-3 Retired ASI Raj First IO Kumar PW-4 SI Hariman Second IO.
Appendix B Chart of Exhibited Documents (including admitted documents) Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/ Attested by State v/s Parveen Yadav Page 12 Cr. Case No. 13220/2022 Ex. PW-2/A Tehrir PW-2 Ex. PW-3/A Site plan PW-3 Ex. PW-3/B Notice u/s 41 A CrPC PW-3 Ex. PW-3/C Interrogation statement of PW-3 accused.
Ex.P-2(colly) Electricity bill and Aadhar PW-3
card
Ex.X-1 FIR no. 805/2021 Admitted
document
Ex.X-2 Certificate U/s 65 B of Admitted
Indian Evidence Act document
21.This judgment contains 14 pages and the same has been pronounced by the undersigned in open court today and each page bears my signatures.
22.Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Dwarka forthwith.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY, i.e., ON 22.01.2026 Deeksha Sethi Judicial Magistrate First Class-08 South-West District/New Delhi 22.01.2026 Digitally signed by DEEKSHA DEEKSHA SETHI SETHI Date: 2026.01.22 18:27:16 +0530 State v/s Parveen Yadav Page 13 Cr. Case No. 13220/2022