Delhi District Court
State vs Dalip Rana on 13 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-07,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Ms. Preeti Rajoria, DJS
Cr. C No. 290203/2016
CNR No.: DLCT020003952011
FIR No. 240/2010
PS Subzi Mandi
u/S 186/353/506 IPC
STATE vs. DALIP RANA
1) The date of commission of offence : 21.09.2010
2) The name of the complainant : Sh. Arun Kumar
3) The name & parentage of accused : Dalip Rana, S/o Late Sh.
Vishambhar Singh, o/o L-24,
Opp. Lock-up, P.S. Rathi
Block, Tis Hazari Court,
Delhi.
4) Offence complained of : Section 186/353/506 IPC
5) Offence charged with : Section 186/353/506 IPC
6) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final order : Acquittal
8) Date of Institution of the case : 21.11.2011
9) Order reserved on : 20.05.2026
10) Order announced on : 13.07.2026
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date:
2026.07.13
18:16:58 +0530
Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 1/33
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution against the accused is that on
21.09.2010 the complainant along with his colleagues came to the Court to attend
a case on behalf of Archaeological Survey of India, and were waiting outside the
court room, the counsel for opposite party, i.e., the accused herein came there
and he became furious abruptly and lost his tamper and then he held the
complainant by his collar and had given him beatings. It has been alleged that
the officials accompanying the complainant rescued him from the clutches of
accused . In the scuffle, it is alleged that the spectacles of the complainant broke
and his cash was also snatched by someone. It has been further alleged that the
accused had threatened the complainant with dire consequences. On the basis of
said complaint, the present FIR was registered against the accused persons u/S
186/353/506 IPC.
2. After investigation, cancellation report u/S 173(2) CrPC was
filed and accused was not chargesheeted under Column No. 11 and he was placed
in Column No. 12 for want of evidence. Further, vide order dated 01.02.2012,
the cancellation report was rejected by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court and
directions were issued for further investigation, particularly with respect to the
requisite complaint u/S 195 CrPC. Further, a protest petition had been filed by
the complainant and a complaint u/S 195 CrPC was filed before the Ld. CMM
(Central, THC) by the Superintendent Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of
India, which was forwarded by the office of the Ld. CMM, Central to this Court
and vide order dated 20.04.2013, the said complaint u/S 195 CrPC was annexed
with the judicial file of the present FIR case. Lastly, on 09.12.2013, the learned
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
Date:
RAJORIA 2026.07.13
18:17:09
+0530
Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 2/33
predecessor of this Court took cognizance of the offence u/S 186/353/506 IPC
after considering the fact the a mandatory complaint had also been filed by the
Superintendent Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India and the fact that
the initial complaint made by the complainant to the Police was supported with
the statements of three eye-witnesses of the alleged attack upon the complainant.
Accused Dalip Rana was summoned. Copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to
the accused in compliance of Section 207 CrPC. Thereafter, order on charge was
pronounced by the learned predecessor of this Court and it was held that prima
facie, accused was liable to be charged for the offence u/S 186/353/506 IPC.
Charge was framed against the accused accordingly, to which he had pleaded not
guilty and opted to face trial.
3. In support of its version, prosecution has examined six witnesses.
After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded
separately wherein accused had claimed to be innocent and denied the allegations
deposed against him. Accused has opted to lead defence evidence and has entered
the witness box as DW-1 and in addition has examined Sh. Deepak Tyagi as
DW-2. Witness namely Sh. Nitin Kakkar was dropped from the list of defence
witnesses upon the submission of the Ld. APP for the State on the ground that
his testimony would be similar to that of DW Deepak Tyagi. The said submission
was not opposed by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. Since no other witness
remained, DE was closed accordingly on 13.02.2025.
4. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel for
accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
5. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses are being touched
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
Date:
RAJORIA 2026.07.13
18:17:16
+0530
Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 3/33
upon, in brief, as follows:-
PW-1 Sh. S. S. Rana, LDC, ASI has deposed that on 21.09.2010, when
he alongwith Mr. Satbir, UDC and Dr. C.D. Mishra had come to Tis Hazari Court
in Court No. 41 at about 10:00 am, to attend case proceeding titled as “Jagan vs.
UOI“, and were waiting outside the court room, then accused Dalip Rana
alongwith 8-10 advocates also came there and accused Dalip Rana said to him “ab
boliye, kya bolna hai” to which he replied “mujhe kuch nahi bolna hai, judge saab
batayenge”. It has been further deposed that thereafter, they started beating him
and tore his clothes; his spectacles also were broken and then he immediately
rushed into the Court and told the abovesaid facts to Presiding Officer Sh. Ajay
Goel, who had asked him as to who had beaten him and then he told him that he
did not know their names. Presiding Officer called accused Dalip Rana after
which, he came to know the name of accused. It has been further deposed that
thereafter, police took him to hospital where he was medically examined. He
made a complaint Ex. PW1/A at Police Post, Tis Hazari Court, and also made
complaint to the Presiding Officer. Leading questions were put to the witness by
the Ld. APP for the State after seeking permission, as the witness was not
disclosing complete facts, to which the witness deposed that it is correct that in
his complaint, he had mentioned that accused had also threatened his with dire
consequences. Accused was correctly identified by the witness before the Court
and was duly cross examined by the learned defence counsel.
During cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that many of the facts narrated
by him in Court, including the alleged conversation with the accused, tearing of
clothes, breaking of spectacles, his rushing into the courtroom, and the Presiding
Officer calling the accused, were not mentioned in his written complaint. He
admitted that he had not handed over his torn clothes or broken spectacles to the
police or doctors. He further admitted that no written complaint regarding the
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
Date:
RAJORIA 2026.07.13
18:17:23
+0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 4/33
incident was given to the Presiding Officer and that the order sheet of the civil
court did not record any such incident. He admitted that he had no written
authorization from the department (Archaeological Survey of India) to represent
it before the civil court and had not produced any document showing that he was
on official duty on that day. He further admitted that no statement of any of the
20 departmental officials allegedly present was recorded on the day of occurrence.
He denied the suggestion that the case was falsely lodged after a stay order had
been passed against the department in the civil litigation.
PW-2 Sh. Satbir Singh Dahiya has deposed that on 21.09.2010, he
alongwith Mr. S.S. Rana and Dr. C.D. Mishra had come to Tis Hazari Court in
Court No. 41 at 10:00 am, to attend case proceeding titled as “Jagan vs. UOI“
and were waiting outside the court, accused Dalip Rana alongwith 5-6 advocates
also came there and gave a hard slap to Mr. S.S. Rana on his face. Thereafter,
accused Dalip Rana caught hold of the collar of S.S. Rana and gave kick blows
to him, and that he tried to rescue S.S. Rana but he was overpowered by the
associates of accused Dalip Rana. Accused Dalip Rana threatened S.S. Rana by
saying “aaj to bach gaya hai, kabhi aur dekhenge” (translated to “today you
managed to escape but we will see you in future”). Thereafter, they released S.S.
Rana and he came to the court to save himself from further beatings. Thereafter,
case was got registered. Accused was correctly identified by the witness before
the Court during his testimony and was duly cross examined by the learned
defence Counsel.
In cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that several important facts narrated
in Court, including the slap, grabbing of collar, threat, and his attempt to rescue
PW-1, were not specifically recorded in his police statement under Section 161
CrPC. He admitted that no written complaint regarding the incident was given to
the civil court and that no document showing departmental authorization to attend
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date:
2026.07.13
18:17:31 +0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 5/33
the proceedings was ever produced before the police or Court. He also admitted
that the civil court had granted relief to the plaintiff against the department on
that day. He denied the defence suggestion that the departmental officials attacked
the accused after becoming aggrieved by the stay order and that his gold chain,
ring and spectacles were damaged or lost during the altercation.
PW-3 Sh. C.D. Mishra, Retd. S.O., Archaeological Survey of India, has
deposed that on 21.09.2010, he alongwith Satbir Singh, UDC and S.S. Rana,
ADC had come to Tis Hazari Court at Court No. 41 to attend the case proceedings
in case titled as “Jagan vs. UOI” and were waiting outside the court as the case
was yet to be called, and in the meantime, accused Dalip Rana had come and
started beating S.S. Rana and that he and Satbir Singh tried to save S.S. Rana,
but 3-4 advocates accompanied with Dalip Rana had stopped us from saving S.S.
Rana., however, S.S. Rana managed to save himself somehow and went to the
Court No. 41 and told the incident to Presiding Officer, who had called Advocate
Dalip Rana after which, Dalip Rana had come in the court and he apologized
before the Presiding Officer. It has been further deposed that they had made a
complaint at Police Post, Tis Hazari Court. Thereafter, the then Police Post
Incharge had called accused at the Police Post, he reached there and there was a
crowd gathered there after which the then PP Incharge made the accused
understand. Leading questions were put to the witness by the Ld. APP for the
State after seeking permission, to which the witness deposed that it is was wrong
to suggest that the accused had threatened them to kill them. Accused was
correctly identified by the witness before the Court and was duly cross examined
by the learned defence counsel.
During cross-examination, PW-3 admitted that neither he nor his
colleagues possessed any authority letter from the department to appear in Court.
He admitted that the department was represented through counsel and that they
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
Date:
RAJORIA 2026.07.13
18:17:37
+0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 6/33
had not been summoned by the civil court. He further admitted that there was no
mention in the civil court order sheet regarding any complaint made about the
incident. He admitted that a status quo order had been passed against the
department and that accused Dalip Rana was counsel for the plaintiff in that case.
He also admitted that no torn clothes were seized and that witness M.K. Batra,
who was allegedly present throughout, did not give any statement to the police.
He denied the suggestion that no such incident took place or that they had falsely
implicated the accused after suffering an adverse order in the civil case.
PW-4 Inspector Satya Prakash, has deposed that on 07.02.2011, when he
was posted at Police Post Tis Hazari, PS Subzi Mandi as SI, the further
investigation of the case was marked to him and that during the investigation on
26.03.2011, he recorded statements of Sh. Satbir Singh and C.D. Mishra, officials
of Archaeological Survey of India and that after completion of investigation the
final report u/S 173 CrPC was submitted by placing the alleged person Dalip
Rana in column No.12 of the report. It has been further deposed that during trial,
the Court directed to re-investigate the matter. It has been further deposed that in
the present matter, the complaint u/S 195 CrPC was awaited and that he made
efforts to obtain the same from department Archaeological Survey of India, and
that he had also submitted status report Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-4/B before
the trial Court as the complaint u/S 195 CrPC remained awaited. It has been
further deposed that later on the said complaint u/S 195 CrPC was submitted by
the Archaeological Survey of India before Ld. CMM (Central), Delhi. It has been
further deposed that the order sheet of the case passed by the Court in which
complainant and alleged person were appeared on the day of incident, was
collected and filed by him on the record. The said certified copy is Ex.
PW-4/C. Witness was duly cross examined by the accused.
During cross-examination, PW-4 admitted that accused Dalip Rana’s
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date:
2026.07.13
18:17:43 +0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 7/33
complaint was already on record but he did not conduct any investigation
regarding the same. He further admitted that nothing regarding the alleged
incident was mentioned in the civil court order sheet. Significantly, he admitted
that he did not find sufficient truthfulness in the version of the complainant and
accompanying witnesses and therefore placed the name of the accused in Column
No. 12 rather than sending him up for trial.
PW-5 HC Tarash Pal has deposed that on 22.09.2010, when he was
posted at PS Subzi Mandi as HC/Duty Officer from 04.00 pm to 12.00 midnight,
at about 10.40 pm, SI Jagdish Yadav presented to him with the complaint already
Ex. PW-1/A for registration of FIR, on the basis of which, FIR No. 240/10, u/S
186/353/506 IPC was registered. He made an endorsement on rukka, which is Ex.
PW-5/A and after registration of the FIR, copy of the FIR and rukka were handed
over to SI Jagdish Yadav for investigation. The copy of the FIR was retained in
FIR register, which was brought by the witness to the Court and the copy of the
FIR (computer generated), which was already placed on record was exhibited
as Ex. PW-5/B (OSR). Witness was not cross examined despite opportunity.
PW-6 Inspector Jagdish Yadav has deposed that on 21.09.2010, when
he was posted as SI/Incharge Police Post, Tis Hazari, Delhi, the complaint already
Ex. PW-1/A of complainant S.S. Rana and complaint of Dilip Rana were received
in Police Post Tis Hazari. He got S.S. Rana medically examined from Aruna
Asaf Ali Hospital through Ct. Rajender. He has further deposed that after
conducting verbal inquiry from the spot, the FIR was got registered by making
endorsement on complaint already Ex. PW-1/A. The endorsement is Ex. PW-6/A.
He has further deposed that after registration of the FIR, the investigation was
marked to him. It has been further deposed that during investigation, he visited
the spot that is, outside Court Room No. 41, THC Complex and efforts were
made to trace the eye witnesses of the incident but no independent eye witness
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date:
2026.07.13
18:17:50 +0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 8/33
came forward. The complainant was not found sustained any fresh injury. One
complaint was made by accused Dalip Rana against the complainant S.S. Rana
vide DD No. 16 dated 21.09.2010. He has further deposed that local inquiry was
made on that complaint but no substantial evidence could be found about the
allegations levelled in that complaint. Thereafter, he was transferred and he
handed over the case file to MHC(R). Witness was duly cross examined by the
accused.
During cross-examination, PW-6 admitted that he had also sent the
accused for medical examination. He further admitted that CCTV cameras were
installed in the area though he claimed that the place of incident was outside their
coverage. He admitted that court staff members were contacted but none supported
the prosecution version.
Prosecution evidence, oral and documentary in tabular form is as under:
ORAL EVIDENCE
PW-1 :- Sh. S.S. Rana (Complainant)
PW-2 :- Sh. Satbir Singh Dahiya (Eye Witness)
PW-3 :- Sh. C.D. Mishra (Eye Witness)
PW-4 :- Inspector Satya Prakash (2nd Investigating Officer)
PW-5 :- HC Tarash Pal (Duty Officer)
PW-6 :- Inspector Jagdish Yadav (1st Investigating Officer)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
1. Ex. PW-1/A Complaint filed by the complainant at Police Post, Tis
Hazari Court on 21.09.2010.
2. Ex. PW-4/A Status Report filed by Inspector Satya Prakash
regarding further investigation.
3. Ex. PW-4/B Status Report filed by Inspector Satya Prakash
regarding further investigation.
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date:
2026.07.13
18:17:56 +0530
Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 9/33
4. Ex. PW-4/C Certified Copy of the Order dated 21.09.2010 passed
by the Ld. Civil Judge Sh. Ajal Goel.
5. Ex. PW-5/A Endorsement on the rukka.
6. Ex. PW-5/B Copy of the FIR (computer generated).
(OSR)
7. Ex. PW-6/A Endorsement on the complaint Ex. PW-1/A.
6. Statement of accused was recorded u/S 313 CrPC read with
Section 281 CrPC, on 20.08.2024, in which all the incriminating evidence were
put to the accused. Accused has stated that he has been falsely implicated by the
complainant. He has further stated that the complainant had threatened the
accused that “he would teach him a lesson”. It has been further stated that no
scuffle with the complainant as alleged took place prior to the court hearing
outside Court Room No. 41, THC and it was only because a stay was ordered by
the Ld. Court (Room No. 41, THC) that the complainant had misbehaved with
the accused and warned him of dire consequences. Accused has led defence
evidence and has examined himself as DW-1 while Sh. Deepak Tyagi has been
examined as DW-2.
7. The testimonies of defence witnesses are being touched upon, in
brief, as follows:-
DW-1 Dalip Rana has deposed that on 20.09.2010, he was asked by his
senior to visit the property in Begum Pur where Archaeological Survey of India
(hereinafter ASI) were carrying out the demolition work. After reaching the said
premises, he informed the officers of ASI that the suit pertaining to the case
property is pending in the court of Ld. Sr. Civil Judge, Sh. Ajay Goel and as they
do not have any demolition order so the process of demolition may be stopped.
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date:
2026.07.13
18:18:02 +0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 10/33
At that time, the complainant Sh. S.S. Rana and Sh. Satbir Singh were also
present there. They misbehaved with him saying, “Bhot Dekhe Hai Tere Jaise
Vakil”. He has further deposed that one of the senior officials of ASI met him
and suggested to him politely to move an application before the concerned court
and procure the stay order and on the same date, he moved an application before
the concerned court and requested for stay, and that the said application was
listed on next day for hearing. It has been further deposed that after hearing the
matter from both sides, the Ld. Court of Sh. Ajay Goel granted a stay in favour
of the DW-1/accused Dalip Rana. The order dated 21.09.2010 is already Ex.
PW-4/C. It has been further deposed that after the hearing, when he came outside
the court, the officers of the ASI namely S.S. Rana and Satbir Singh started
misbehaving with him and they also pushed him while arguing and using harsh
language. It has been further deposed that in order to pacify/control the situation,
Sh. Deepak Tyagi, Advocate, Sh. Nitin Kakkar and other advocates intervened
and separated them. It has been further deposed that he was suggested by the
advocates present there to lodge a complaint against the officials of ASI and at
that time, he also discovered that during the course of scuffle his gold chain, ring
were missing and his spectacles were broken. He has then deposed that thereafter,
he went to the Police Post, Tis Hazari, Delhi and he made a police complaint in
writing which is already Ex. PW-4/DA. He has further deposed that after lodging
the complaint, he came back to his chamber and after few days, he was called by
the IO from Police Post, Tis Hazari, where he came to know that the officials of
ASI have also lodged a complaint against him. It has been deposed that they have
lodged a false complaint against him as he had intervened and suggested them
not to demolish the property illegally due to the pendency of Civil Suit in the
Court. It has been further deposed that on 03.07.2018, the case titled as “Jagan
vs. Union of India“, in which stay was granted, was decided in favour of the
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date:
2026.07.13
18:18:08 +0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 11/33
plaintiff therein.
The said judgment, order and decree dated 03.07.2018 is Ex. DW-1/1 (colly)
(running into 22 pages). No complaint was lodged by the officials in the court of
Sh. Ajay Goel. The same was not even informed to the court staff and main
counsel. Witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State.
DW-2 Deepak Tyagi has deposed that on 21.09.2010, the present incident
took place. He has deposed that at about 10.30 am, he was coming from Gole
Canteen and heading towards his Chamber/Seat in Gajanand Block, through the
court Gallery and when he was passing Court No. 41 located at the corner side,
some lawyers and other persons (unknown to him) were arguing with each other.
They were arguing with Lawyers saying, “Dekh Lenge, Tumne Stay Kara Dia”.
Spectacles of one of the Counsels was found broken. Some more Counsels also
stopped to know about the incident and they made efforts to pacify them and
separated them. The said persons were aggressive and were not ready to listen.
They were pushing the Counsels despite their efforts to stop them. The ring and
chain of the counsel got misplaced. Thereafter, he came to know that the name
of the lawyer is Dalip Rana. He has deposed that he advised the counsel to lodge
a complaint in the police post. Witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. APP
for the State.
8. Sh. D.S. Kohli, Ld. Counsel for the accused has advanced final
arguments at length. He has structured his arguments in a way so that first the
main ingredients of each offence is explained and then the fulfillment of the said
ingredients by application to the testimonies of the witnesses is checked. In this
regard, it has been argued that for an offence u/s 353 IPC to be made out, it is
essential that it is proved that the victim of the said offence should be a public
servant who had been assigned official functions, and assault has been made on
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date:
2026.07.13
18:18:13 +0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 12/33
that person while he is discharging his duties. Ld. Counsel has submitted that the
complainant/victim in the present case has not brought on record any documents
to indicate his authorisation to appear before the Ld. Civil Court on the alleged
date of incident. Reliance has been placed upon the testimonies of the three public
witnesses including the complainant, who have all deposed that no written
authorisation to appear before the Ld. Civil Court existed in their favour. PW-1
has deposed that the department never issued any authorisation to make
appearance before Courts, while PW-2 and PW-3 have both deposed that there
was no authorisation issued to them to appear before the Court despite there
being such a practice. Further, qua the aspect of assault, it has been argued that
the complainant did not sustain any injury as is indicated in his MLC placed on
record despite his allegations that he was beaten up by 8 to 10 persons. It has
also been argued that the MLC does not indicate the name of the person(s) who
have assaulted the complainant. With respect to the number of persons who have
allegedly beaten the complainant, it has been argued that PW-2 deposed that the
complainant was beaten by 5 to 6 persons, while the said number had been further
reduced to 3 to 4 persons in the testimony of PW-3.
It has been further argued that the present complaint was a counterblast
and that nowhere in the said complaint dated 21.09.2010, it has been stated that
the accused had stopped/obstructed the complainant from attending to his official
duties. Rather it has been alleged that the accused abruptly lost his temper and
had beaten the complainant. In this regard, it has also been submitted that PW-2
has deposed that the accused had threatened the complainant by stating ” aaj toh
bach gaye hain, kabhi aur dekhenge”, and that there was no threat or obstruction
to attend the Court proceedings. Attention of the Court was drawn to the cross
examination of PW-2 where he had stated that the alleged incident has not been
reported in the office in writing by the complainant or PW-2. PW-2 has also
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date:
2026.07.13
18:18:20 +0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 13/33
admitted in his cross examination that there was no written authorisation issued
in their favour for appearance before the Court on the alleged day of incident.
It has also been submitted that the allegations of threat are baseless and
that PW-1 had not deposed about the alleged threat advanced to him until he was
put a leading question in this regard by the Ld. APP for the State. Whereas, PW-3
has denied the suggestion of the Ld. APP for the State that the accused has
extended any threat to the complainant.
It has been further argued that the bar u/S 195 CrPC was applicable to
this case since allegations pertains to commission of Section 186 IPC. Despite
the same, the procedure prescribed for the same has been bypassed and the
proceedings have thus been vitiated. It has been argued that procedure prescribed
under Chapter XIX Part B of the Code of Criminal Procedure should have been
followed however, the procedure prescribed for a case instituted on a police
report had been followed in the instant case.
It has been further argued that the as per the allegations of clothes of the
complainant being torn and spectacles being broken in the incident, the
complainant did not produce either torn clothes or the broken spectacles during
the investigation or during trial. Attention of the Court had been drawn to the
cross examination of the PW Complainant, where he had stated that he had made
and drafted his complaint in hand and given at the Police Post, whereas the
complaint PW-1/A is a typed document with one sentence handwritten.
It has been also argued that there are major contradictions and
improvements in the testimony of the public witnesses. It has been submitted that
PW-3 has completely introduced a new fact that the accused had allegedly
apologized to the complainant before the Ld. Civil Court when he was called
inside the Court room by the Ld. Judge. It has been further submitted that PW-3
has also deposed in his cross examination that a written complaint was in fact
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date:
2026.07.13
18:18:27 +0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 14/33
filed by the complainant before the Ld. Civil Judge after the alleged incident. He
has also stated that one Mohit Sharma was their counsel however, they did not
ask him to accompany them for the proceedings. It has also been pointed out that
the prosecution has failed to examine the said counsel.
It has been further argued that the on 21.09.2010, the matter taken up by
the Ld. Civil Judge was an application seeking a stay on the demolition work
being carried out by the Archaeological Survey of India despite pendency of the
civil suit. It has been further submitted that there is no mention of any altercation
or the alleged incident in the order passed by the Ld. Civil Judge.
It has been further argued that the testimonies of the police witnesses
also do not aid the case of the prosecution and that IO has deposed that he had
filed a cancellation/closure for want of evidence against the accused while IO/PW
Inspector Jagdish Yadav has deposed that during investigation, the Court staff
have refused to be examined as witness in the present case. In his cross
examination, he has also admitted that he has not prepared any site plan during
investigation.
In view of the above submissions, it has been prayed that the accused be
acquitted in the present case as the prosecution has not been able to prove the
charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Reliance has been placed on the following judgments:
In Rilgin V. George vs. State of Kerala1, the facts of the case were that th
petitioners, who were advocates, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered for
offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 294(b) and 353 IPC. The prosecution
alleged that after a departmental enquiry against a police officer concluded in the
High Court premises, a group of advocates formed an unlawful assembly, abused
and assaulted the police officer and obstructed him. It was held by the Hon’ble1 MANU/KE/1291/2021, Bail Appl. No. 3192 of 2021 decided on 04.05.2021.
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date:
2026.07.13
18:18:34 +0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 15/33
High Court of Kerala that a fundamental ingredient of Section 353 IPC is that
the public servant must be in the lawful discharge of his official duty at the time
of the alleged assault or use of criminal force. Merely because a person is a
police officer or is wearing uniform does not automatically attract Section 353
IPC. Since the complainant was only attending an enquiry regarding a complaint
against him, the Court observed that it could not be said that he was discharging
his official duties as a public servant at the relevant time. Consequently, the Court
found prima facie substance in the contention that Section 353 IPC had been
added only to make the offence non-bailable and granted anticipatory bail.
In Ilamplraiyan vs. Inspector of Police2, the facts of the case were that
the petitioner had sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 294(b),
353 and 506(i) IPC. During a vehicle check, police alleged that the petitioner
caught hold of the Sub-Inspector’s uniform shirt, abused him and threatened to
kill the police personnel. The petitioner alleged that he had instead been assaulted
by the police and falsely implicated. The Hon’ble High Court of Madra quashed
the proceedings and held that Section 353 IPC requires actual assault or use of
criminal force with the intention of preventing or deterring a public servant from
performing official duty. Mere gestures, preparations or trivial physical conduct
do not amount to “assault” or “criminal force” for Section 353 IPC. Simply
catching hold of a uniform shirt, without material showing intentional assault to
obstruct official duty, is insufficient. Further, it was held that for Section 506
IPC, mere abusive or threatening words are not enough; the prosecution must
show an intention to cause alarm. Since the essential ingredients of all three
offences alleged were absent, continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse
of process and the proceedings were quashed.
2 MANU/TN/3455/2022, Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 19481 of 2018, Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.8843-8844
of 2018, decided on 28.01.2022.
Digitally signed
PREETI by PREETI
RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date: 2026.07.13
18:18:40 +0530
Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 16/33
In Mahendra Kumar Sonker vs. State of Madhya Pradesh3, the facts of
the case were that the appellant, a Patwari, faced a corruption trap. During the
trap proceedings, the prosecution alleged that he resisted the trap party and
thereby committed an offence under Section 353 IPC. Although acquitted of
corruption charges, he was convicted under Section 353 IPC by the trial court
and the High Court affirmed the conviction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed
the appeal and laid down that Section 353 IPC is attracted only when there is
assault or use of criminal force against a public servant in the discharge of official
duty or with intent to deter such discharge. “Force”, “criminal force” and “assault”
must satisfy the statutory definitions under Sections 349, 350 and 351 IPC. Mere
resistance to arrest, pushing, jostling or attempting to wriggle free does not by
itself constitute assault or criminal force under Section 353 IPC. The prosecution
must establish an intentional assault or intentional use of criminal force directed
at preventing the public servant from performing official duty. Where the facts
disclose only obstruction without assault or criminal force, Section 186 IPC, and
not Section 353 IPC, may be attracted (subject to the procedural requirements of
Section 195 CrPC). Since the evidence only showed pushing and jostling while
trying to escape, none of the essential ingredients of Section 353 IPC were
established, and the conviction was set aside.
In Amer Khan vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.4, the facts of the
case were that the applicant sought quashing of an FIR registered for offences
under Sections 353, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC alleging obstruction of
a public servant during an anti-encroachment drive near Dr. Salim Ali Lake,
Aurangabad. The Municipal Corporation claimed that the demolition drive was
being carried out pursuant to directions issued by the High Court in a suo motu
3 Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2012, decided on 12.08.2024.
4 MANU/MH/5486/2023, Criminal Application No. 3312 of 2019 decided on 22.02.2023.
Digitally signed
PREETI by PREETI
RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date: 2026.07.13
18:18:46 +0530
Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 17/33
PIL concerning encroachments around the lake. The prosecution alleged that,
before the demolition commenced, the applicant abused the municipal officer,
threatened to break his hands and legs, rushed towards him, and obstructed him
in the discharge of his official duties. The applicant contended that he was the
lawful occupier of the property, that there was a subsisting civil court injunction
restraining demolition of the structure, and that no High Court order directing
demolition existed on the date of the incident. He further argued that the
allegations did not disclose the ingredients of Section 353 IPC.
The High Court found that the demolition action itself was not shown to have
been undertaken pursuant to any lawful High Court direction and that the
municipal action was contrary to the civil court’s injunction. It also found that
the allegations in the FIR did not disclose either “criminal force” or “assault” as
defined under the IPC. Consequently, the FIR and the criminal proceedings were
quashed. It has been held that Lawful discharge of official duty is an essential
ingredient of Section 353 IPC. The protection under Section 353 is available
only when the public servant is performing a lawful duty. Mere purported or
claimed discharge of duty is insufficient. For an offence under Section 353 IPC,
there must be assault or use of criminal force as defined in the IPC. Mere abuses,
threats, or rushing towards a public servant, without any gesture creating
apprehension of imminent use of criminal force or without actual use of force,
do not satisfy the statutory requirements. “Criminal force” under Sections 349
and 350 IPC requires actual use of force resulting in motion, change of motion,
or cessation of motion in the manner contemplated by law. In the absence of such
force, Section 353 cannot be invoked. “Assault” under Section 351 IPC requires a
gesture or preparation that causes a reasonable apprehension of imminent use of
criminal force. Mere verbal threats, even if accompanied by approaching the
complainant, do not constitute assault unless accompanied by the requisite gesture
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date:
2026.07.13
18:18:51 +0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 18/33
or preparation creating such apprehension.
In Kanshi Ram vs. State5, the facts were that Kanshi Ram, then President
of BSP, was provided Z-category security. A number of journalists assembled
outside his residence. An altercation took place between journalists and security
personnel. FIR was registered alleging offences under Sections 147, 149, 323,
354 and 506 IPC. Mayawati was discharged by the Magistrate but charges were
retained against Kanshi Ram. Kanshi Ram approached the Delhi High Court
under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held
qua the offence under Section 506 IPC, that mere abusive words or threats are
insufficient. Criminal intimidation is made out only if the threat causes alarm to
the victim.
Judgments relied upon by the accused qua the bar u/S 195 CrPC to the
present case, have been discussed detailed later in the judgment.
9. Per contra, Sh. Aman Gaurav, Ld. APP for the State has argued
that the complaint/FIR had been lodged on the same day as that of the incident
and that the presence of the accused at the place of incident is not disputed since
the ordersheet of the Ld. Civil Court indicates the presence of the accused. It has
been submitted that the MLC of the complainant was also prepared on the same
day. Qua the contention that no external injury was present on the person of the
complainant at the time of his medical examination, Ld. APP for the State has
pointed at the definition of hurt to emphasize on the fact that the injury suffered
need not be visible in all cases and also includes bodily pain. It has been further
submitted that the incident/altercation took place outside the Court Room and
thus, the the same being not a part of the Court’s order is a normal practice as
5 MANU/DE/0566/2000, Crl. M (M) 921/2000 decided on 16.05.2000.
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
Date:
RAJORIA 2026.07.13
18:18:57
+0530
Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 19/33
not all incidents that takes place outside the court room find their mention in the
ordersheets. It has been further submitted that incident took place before the
appearance in the civil matter. It has been also submitted that there exists no
reason for false implication of the accused by the complainant since complainant
is a public servant having no personal interest in the civil matter. Qua the objection
regarding lack of authorisation by the complainant and PW-2 & PW-3, it has
been submitted that there was no requirement for authorisation and that the PWs
have merely admitted the suggestion put to them during cross examination. It has
been lastly submitted that the contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel
for the accused are minor and do not affect the prosecution case. It has thus been
prayed that accused Dalip Rana be convicted for the commission of offences he
has been charged with.
10. In rebuttal, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the
accused that the chargesheet cannot be treated as a complaint in terms of Section
2(d) CrPC, wherein a specific exclusion is made qua a police report and that the
complaint filed before the Ld. CMM, under Section 195 CrPC has not been
proved in terms of the provisions laid down in the Indian Evidence Act and that
the cognizance has been taken by only making reference to the complaint upon
which the FIR was lodged. It has been also been submitted that the motive of the
complainant is implicit in the fact that a stay order was issued in favour of the
plaintiff who was being represented by the accused and that the said civil suit
has been subsequently decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the ASI. It
has been reiterated that except the complainant and the two other officials of the
ASI, no eye witness has come up. Even the orderly posted in the Court of Ld.
Civil Judge at that time, who is usually placed just at the entry of a Court room
was not examined by the prosecution and further, that the MLC of the complainant
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
Date:
RAJORIA 2026.07.13
18:19:03
+0530
Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 20/33
did not record even a bruise despite allegations of being beaten by 8-10 persons.
11. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced on behalf
of both sides and have thoroughly examined the entire record.
12. At the outset, the relevant provisions of law/Sections with which
the accused has been charged, are hereby reproduced.
Section 186 IPC reads as under:
“Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his
public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five
hundred rupees, or with both.”
Section 353 IPC reads as under:
“Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public
servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to
prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant,
or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in
the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both.”
Section 506 IPC reads as under:
“Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished
with imprison-ment of either description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both;If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.
And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the
destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death
or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date:
2026.07.13
18:19:12 +0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 21/33
seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years,
or with fine, or with both.”
13. Before dealing with the merits of the prosecution case, it may be
noted that an objection has been raised on behalf of the accused regarding the
maintainability of the proceedings conducted on the ground of alleged non-
compliance of Section 195 CrPC. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that it has
been argued by the learned counsel for the accused that the proceedings conducted
by this Court are vitiated as the complaint subsequently filed by the
Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India could not be treated as a
“complaint” within the meaning of Section 2(d) CrPC. It has been contended that
once cognizance was purportedly taken on the basis of such complaint, the
procedure prescribed in Part-B of Chapter XIX CrPC, relating to trial of warrant
cases instituted otherwise than on a police report, ought to have been followed.
According to the accused, the Court erroneously proceeded under Part-A of
Chapter XIX CrPC applicable to cases instituted on a police report. Reliance has
been placed upon the decisions in Daulat Ram vs. State of Punjab6, Gurinder
Singh vs. State7, Mohan Kukreja vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)8 and
Santokh Singh Chawla vs. State NCT of Delhi9.
Ld. APP for the State while addressing arguments on this point has also
placed reliance on the judgment in Santokh Singh Chawla (Supra) to support
his contention that the cognizance was taken by this Court in the present matter
not solely on the Police report but it was taken only after a proper complaint was
6 MANU/SC/0139/1962, Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 960, decided on 25.01.1962.
7 MANU/DE/0635/1996, Criminal Revision Appeal No. 33 of 1996, decided on 23.05.1996.
8 MANU/DE/0023/2019, Crl.M.C. 662/2018, decided on 08.01.2019.
9 MANU/DE/5078/2023, Crl. M.C. 3195/2023 and Crl.M.A. 11964/2023, decided on
31.07.2023.
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date:
2026.07.13
18:19:20 +0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 22/33
filed by the Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India before the Ld. CMM,
Central and the same was then marked to this Court, annexed with the record in
the matter and given consideration by this Court. In rebuttal, it has been argued
by the learned counsel for the accused had submitted that the said complaint filed
by the ASI was never relied upon by the complainant in the present case and the
same has also not been exhibited during the prosecution evidence. Before
examining the contention, it is necessary to analyse the ratio laid down in the
aforesaid authorities.
Ø In Daulat Ram (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a
prosecution under Section 182 IPC. The Court found that no complaint in
writing had been filed by the concerned Tehsildar, who was the public
servant contemplated under Section 195 CrPC. Instead, the prosecution
had been launched on the basis of a police report. The Supreme Court
held that Section 195 creates an absolute bar against the Court taking
cognizance except upon a written complaint by the public servant
concerned or a superior officer. Since no such complaint existed,
cognizance itself was held to be without jurisdiction and the entire trial
was declared void ab initio. The Court emphasised that the defect goes to
the very root of jurisdiction and is not a mere procedural irregularity.
Ø Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Gurinder Singh (Supra)
considered a prosecution involving Section 186 IPC. The Court reiterated
that a statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC cannot be equated with
the written complaint contemplated under Section 195 CrPC. It was held
that where no written complaint by the concerned public servant exists,
cognizance under Section 186 IPC is barred. The Court further observed
that the prosecution cannot circumvent the embargo contained in Section
195 CrPC by merely changing the nomenclature of the offences or by
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
Date:
RAJORIA 2026.07.13
18:19:26
+0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 23/33
describing the same factual allegations under another penal provision.
Consequently, the proceedings were quashed.
Ø In Mohan Kukreja (Supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court again
considered a prosecution under Section 188 IPC. There, a complaint had
been made by the public servant to the SHO, leading to registration of an
FIR and filing of a chargesheet. The Court held that a complaint addressed
to the police is not equivalent to a complaint to the Magistrate as
contemplated by Section 195 CrPC read with Section 2(d) CrPC. Since
cognizance had been taken merely on a police report and not on a valid
complaint presented to the Court by the competent public servant, the
proceedings were held to be void ab initio. The Court further observed
that such a jurisdictional defect cannot be cured subsequently by filing a
supplementary chargesheet or a belated complaint after cognizance has
already been taken.
Ø The same principle was reiterated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
Santokh Singh Chawla (Supra). After analysing the decisions of the
Supreme Court including Daulat Ram, the Court held that Section 195
CrPC imposes a mandatory condition precedent for taking cognizance of
offences under Sections 186 and 188 IPC. The Court clarified that
registration of an FIR and investigation by the police are not barred.
However, before cognizance can be taken, a proper complaint in writing
by the competent public servant must be filed before the Court. Since no
such complaint had been filed before the Magistrate in that case and
cognizance had been taken merely on the chargesheet, the order taking
cognizance was set aside.
A conjoint reading of the aforesaid decisions reveals that the common
thread running through all of them is that a Court cannot take cognizance of
Digitally signed
PREETI by PREETI
RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date: 2026.07.13
18:19:33 +0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 24/33
offences covered by Section 195 CrPC unless there exists a valid written complaint
by the competent public servant. Each of the aforesaid cases concerned a situation
where cognizance had been taken either solely on a police report or in the absence
of a complaint satisfying the requirements of Section 195 CrPC. Consequently,
the Courts held that the assumption of jurisdiction itself was illegal.
However, the factual situation in the present case stands on a fundamentally
different footing. Initially, a cancellation report was filed. The learned predecessor
of this Court noticed the absence of compliance with Section 195 CrPC and
directed further investigation. Thereafter, a formal complaint under Section 195
CrPC was submitted by the Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The said complaint was forwarded to the
concerned Court and thereafter cognizance was taken while rejecting the
cancellation report. Thus, unlike the cases cited above, the instant case is not the
one where cognizance was taken solely on a police report in the complete absence
of a complaint under Section 195 CrPC. It is also pertinent to note that the validity
of such cognizance and the consequent order on charge were specifically
challenged by the accused in revision. The learned Sessions Court (Special Judge-
CBI (PC Act-06), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi) vide order dated 07.09.2016, after
considering the matter, upheld both the order taking cognizance and the order on
charge. The said order attained finality as it was never challenged before any
superior forum. Furthermore, the authorities relied upon by the accused do not
lay down that once a valid complaint under Section 195 CrPC is received by the
Court and cognizance is taken thereupon, the entire police investigation becomes
non est or that the Court is mandatorily required to discard the police report and
proceed exclusively under Part-B of Chapter XIX CrPC. The ratio of those
judgments is confined to the requirement that cognizance cannot be taken in the
absence of a valid complaint. That requirement stood satisfied before cognizance
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date:
2026.07.13
18:19:40 +0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 25/33
was ultimately taken in the present case.
Further, the objection now raised essentially pertains to the correctness of
the procedure adopted after cognizance. Such an objection could and ought to
have been raised at the stage of cognizance, charge, or revision. Having
unsuccessfully challenged the cognizance order and the order on charge before
the Ld. Revisional Court, and having thereafter participated in the entire trial
without demur, the accused cannot at the stage of final arguments seek to reopen
issues that stand concluded by the earlier judicial orders which have attained
finality. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the decisions in
Daulat Ram, Gurinder Singh, Mohan Kukreja and Santokh Singh Chawla
(Supra) are distinguishable on facts. Those authorities deal with cases where
cognizance itself was taken without a valid complaint under Section 195 CrPC.
In the present matter, cognizance was taken only after a complaint under Section
195 CrPC had been brought before the Court, and the legality of such cognizance
as well as the order on charge already stands affirmed by the Ld. Revisional
Court. Therefore, the objection raised by the accused regarding the alleged
invalidity of the proceedings is devoid of merit and is rejected. Lastly, the
complaint under Section 195 CrPC merely removes the statutory bar to
cognizance; it does not necessarily erase the evidentiary value of the police
investigation already conducted.
14. Accordingly, the case is required to be examined on the basis of
the evidence led by the parties. The prosecution has examined six witnesses. The
case of the prosecution primarily rests upon the testimonies of PW-1 S.S. Rana,
PW-2 Satbir Singh Dahiya and PW-3 Dr. C.D. Mishra, who claim to be
eyewitnesses to the occurrence. PW-1 S.S. Rana, the complainant, deposed that
on 21.09.2010 he had gone to Court No. 41, Tis Hazari Courts, along with Satbir
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
Date:
RAJORIA 2026.07.13
18:19:46
+0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 26/33
Singh and Dr. C.D. Mishra in connection with a civil case titled “Jagan vs. Union
of India” and while they were standing outside the courtroom, accused Dalip
Rana arrived with several advocates and questioned him regarding the pending
case. PW-1 stated that when he replied that the matter would be decided by the
Court, the accused and his associates started beating him. He further stated that
his clothes were torn and his spectacles were broken. Then, he immediately
entered the courtroom and informed the Presiding Officer about the incident.
Thereafter, he was medically examined and lodged a complaint with the police.
He also stated that the accused had threatened him with dire consequences.
PW-2 Satbir Singh Dahiya supported the complainant to the extent that
he stated that he had accompanied PW-1 and Dr. Mishra to the Court on the
relevant day and that accused Dalip Rana slapped PW-1, caught hold of his collar
and gave kick blows. He further stated that when he attempted to rescue PW-1,
he was restrained by associates of the accused. PW-2 also deposed that the
accused threatened PW-1 by stating that he had escaped on that day but would
be dealt with later.
PW-3 Dr. C.D. Mishra also claimed to have witnessed the incident. He
stated that accused Dalip Rana started beating PW-1 while they were waiting
outside the courtroom and that he and Satbir Singh attempted to intervene but
were prevented from doing so by advocates accompanying the accused. He
further stated that PW-1 entered the courtroom and informed the Presiding
Officer, who thereafter called accused Dalip Rana. PW-3 further deposed that
accused Dalip Rana apologised before the Presiding Officer.
The prosecution also examined PW-4 Inspector Satya Prakash, who
conducted part of the investigation. PW-4 stated that after recording statements
of witnesses, he submitted a report under Section 173 CrPC in which the name
of the accused was placed in Column No. 12. He further stated that during further
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date:
2026.07.13
18:19:52 +0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 27/33
investigation a complaint under Section 195 CrPC was obtained from the
competent authority and the civil court record was collected. PW-5 HC Tarash
Pal proved the factum of registration of the present FIR. PW-6 Inspector Jagdish
Yadav deposed regarding the initial investigation. He stated that both the
complainant and accused had lodged complaints regarding the occurrence. He
got the complainant medically examined, visited the spot and conducted
investigation.
The accused examined himself as DW-1. He stated that on the previous
day (i.e., a day prior to the date of alleged incident) he had objected to demolition
proceedings being carried out by officials of Archaeological Survey of India and
had thereafter obtained a stay order from the civil court. He had further stated
that after the stay order was granted, the complainant and his associates became
agitated and misbehaved with him outside the courtroom. He stated that advocates
present at the spot intervened and separated the parties. He further deposed that
his gold chain and ring went missing during the scuffle and that he immediately
lodged a complaint with the police. He has also deposed that the present case
was lodged falsely because he had succeeded in obtaining a stay order against
the department of Archaeological Survey of India.
DW-2 Advocate Deepak Tyagi stated that he witnessed a quarrel outside
Court No. 41. He heard persons expressing anger regarding the stay order and
that the spectacles of a lawyer were found broken and he, along with other
advocates, intervened to separate the parties. He did not notice any torn clothes
or injuries on the officials from Archaeological Survey of India.
15. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence, this Court finds that the
prosecution version suffers from several material infirmities.
The testimony of PW-1 contains substantial improvements over his
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date:
2026.07.13
18:19:58 +0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 28/33
original complaint. In his deposition before the Court, PW-1 stated that the
accused questioned him, beat him, tore his clothes, broke his spectacles, and that
he entered the courtroom and informed the Presiding Officer, who thereafter
called the accused. However, during cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that
these important facts were not mentioned in his written complaint Ex. PW1/A.
These omissions are not minor in nature. They relate directly to the manner in
which the alleged incident occurred and therefore affect the reliability of the
witness.
Similarly, PW-2 introduced several material facts in his testimony which
were admittedly not recorded in his statement under Section 161 CrPC. He
admitted that the allegations regarding slapping, grabbing of collar, kick-blows,
threats and his attempt to rescue the complainant were not specifically recorded
in his police statement. These omissions assume significance because they
concern the very acts constituting the alleged offences.
PW-3 further introduced an entirely new circumstance by stating that
accused Dalip Rana apologized before the Presiding Officer. Neither PW-1 nor
PW-2 made any reference to such apology. Significantly, there is no mention of
any such incident in any contemporaneous court record.
Further, the prosecution witnesses also gave inconsistent versions
regarding the representation of the department in the civil proceedings. PW-1
stated that Advocate Tyagi was representing the department. PW-2 stated that no
counsel was representing the department. PW-3, on the contrary, stated that the
department was represented through Advocate Mohit Sharma. Though this
discrepancy may not by itself be fatal, it demonstrates lack of consistency amongst
the prosecution witnesses even regarding surrounding circumstances.
Another circumstance creating serious doubt is that all the three
eyewitnesses admitted that no written complaint regarding the incident was ever
Digitally signed
PREETI by PREETI
RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date: 2026.07.13
18:20:04 +0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 29/33
submitted before the Presiding Officer. More importantly, they admitted that the
civil court record and order sheet do not contain any mention whatsoever of the
alleged incident. According to the prosecution itself, the occurrence took place
immediately outside the courtroom and was brought to the notice of the Presiding
Officer. If such an incident had actually occurred in the manner alleged, some
contemporaneous reflection thereof in the court proceedings would have been a
natural circumstance. The complete absence of any such record assumes
significance.
The prosecution has also failed to produce any documentary material to
establish that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 had been authorised by the Archaeological
Survey of India to attend the proceedings on behalf of the department. All three
witnesses admitted that they possessed no authority letter. Though this
circumstance may not by itself disprove the occurrence, it becomes relevant in
view of the defence case that the dispute arose because a stay order had been
obtained against the department.
The prosecution further failed to produce any physical evidence supporting
its allegations. PW-1 claimed that his clothes were torn and his spectacles were
broken. However, he admittedly neither handed over the torn clothes nor produced
the broken spectacles before the IO. No such articles were seized during
investigation. This omission assumes significance because such evidence would
have provided objective corroboration to the prosecution version.
The prosecution also failed to examine M.K. Batra, who admittedly
accompanied the complainant party throughout the day, including to the police
station and hospital. No explanation has been furnished as to why such an
important witness was withheld.
The evidence of the police witnesses also does not inspire confidence.
PW-4 Inspector Satya Prakash candidly admitted that during investigation he did
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date:
2026.07.13
18:20:10 +0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 30/33
not find sufficient truthfulness in the version of the complainant and
accompanying witnesses. For that reason he placed the name of the accused in
Column No. 12 and did not send him up for trial. This admission by the IO strikes
at the root of the prosecution case. PW-4 further admitted that there was nothing
in the civil court order sheet regarding the alleged occurrence. Further, PW-6
Inspector Jagdish Yadav admitted that both sides had lodged complaints regarding
the incident. He also admitted that despite investigation no independent
eyewitness supported the prosecution version. According to him, court staff
members were contacted but none supported the allegations. He further admitted
that the complainant was not found to have sustained any fresh injury. This
circumstance substantially weakens the allegation of assault.
The occurrence is alleged to have taken place in a busy court complex
during working hours. Numerous advocates, litigants, court officials and police
personnel would ordinarily be present at such a place. Despite this, no independent
witness has been examined by the prosecution. No court official, advocate or
litigant has been produced to corroborate the prosecution version.
16. The defence version, on the other hand, appears reasonably
probable. It has consistently been the stand of the accused that a civil dispute
concerning demolition proceedings was pending and that he had obtained a stay
order against the department immediately prior to the incident. The fact that a
status quo order had indeed been passed against the department stands admitted
by the prosecution witnesses. The testimony of DW-2 Sh. Deepak Tyagi also
lends support to the existence of a quarrel arising out of resentment regarding the
stay order.
17. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date:
2026.07.13
18:20:18 +0530Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 31/33
titled as S. L. Goswami vs. State of M.P., 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC), it has been
held:-
“…… In our view, the onus to proving all the ingredients of
an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does
it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to
somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of
the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false
that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this
burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain
or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case,
which would negative it. It is not however for the accused
even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be
eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of
the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus
shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his
plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests
upon the prosecution …”
In a criminal trial, the onus and duty to prove the case against the accused
is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond
reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if
there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is
entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. The burden
always remains upon the prosecution and never shifts upon the accused. Where
two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must prevail.
18. In the present case, the evidence led by the prosecution suffers
from material omissions, substantial improvements, absence of independent
corroboration, lack of supporting physical evidence, failure to examine material
witnesses, and includes admissions by the IO himself regarding the doubtful
nature of the allegations. These circumstances collectively create serious and
reasonable doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution version. This Court
Digitally signed
PREETI by PREETI
RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date: 2026.07.13
18:20:24 +0530
Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 32/33
is therefore of the considered opinion, that the prosecution has failed to establish
beyond reasonable doubt that accused Dalip Rana voluntarily obstructed the
complainant in discharge of his public duties, assaulted him, or criminally
intimidated him in the manner alleged. Accordingly, accused Dalip Rana is
acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 186, 353 and 506 IPC by
extending to him the benefit of doubt.
It is certified that this judgment contains 33 pages and each and every page has
been signed by me.
Digitally signed
by PREETI
RAJORIA
PREETI Date:
RAJORIA 2026.07.13
Announced in the open court 18:20:30
+0530
on 13.07.2026.
(PREETI RAJORIA)
JMFC-07/Central/ THC
Delhi/13.07.2026
Cr. C No. 290203/2016 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 240/2010 State vs. Dalip Rana 33/33
