[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
State vs Amit @ Mohit on 14 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: MS. SAYESHA CHADHA, DJS
FIR No. 218/2016
PS : Kotwali
U/s 379/511/174A IPC
State Vs. Amit @ Mohit
Date of Institution of case: 11.03.2016
Date when Judgment reserved: 09.06.2025
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 14.07.2025
JUDGMENT
A. Case No. : 302475/2016
B. Date of Institution of Case : 11.03.2016
C. Date of Commission of Offence : 11.01.2016
D. Name of the complainant : Chander Shekhar
E. Name of the Accused : Amit @ Mohit s/o Sh.
& his parentage and residence Bhajan Lal
R/o H.No.100/79, Gali
NO.32, Gamri Som Bazar,
Bhajanpura, Delhi.
Also at Parti Jamuna Bazar,
near Hanuman Mandir,
Vagabond, Delhi.
F. Offences complained of : U/s 379/511/174A Indian
Penal Code
G. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Final order : Acquittal
State Vs. Amit @ Mohit
FIR No. 218/2016
PS Kotwali
1/8
I. Date of such order : 14.07.2025
Brief statement of reasons for decision of the case:
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 11.01.2016 at about
06:30 p.m., at Meena Bazar, Saree ki Dukan, Main Chandni
Chowk, Delhi falling within the jurisdiction of PS : Kotwali,
accused had attempted to commit theft of mobile phone of
complainant Chander Shekhar and accused was apprehended while
attempting the same. Accused failed to appear before this court in
case FIR No. 218/16, PS Kotwali titled as State Vs. Amit @ Mohit
and was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 12.10.2021
and thereby committing an offence punishable u/s 379/511/174A
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as IPC).
2. Upon conclusion of investigation, a final report was filed
before the court on 11.03.2016 against the accused. Cognizance of
offence punishable u/s 379/511/174A IPC was taken. Upon
summoning, the accused appeared and copies of charge sheet were
supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of The Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C).
Thereafter, charge for offence punishable u/s 379/511/174A IPC
was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and
opted for trial. On 18.11.2023, complainant has compounded the
matter for offence u/s 359/511 IPC.
3. Thereafter, the prosecution was given the opportunity to
substantiate the allegations against the accused. The prosecution
examined 3 (three) witness in support of its case:
State Vs. Amit @ Mohit
FIR No. 218/2016
PS Kotwali
2/8
4. PW-1 HC Ajay Kumar has deposed in his examination-in-
chief that the main charge-sheet has been filed in the present case
against accused. Accused was declared PO on 12.10.2021 in the
present case and was arrested by ASI Vipin on 12.07.2022 vide DD
No. 84A PS Kotwali who filed the kalandara u/s 41.1 (c) Cr.P.C.
and produced accused before the concerned court. Thereafter, as per
the directions of concerned SHO, he collected all the relevant
documents from ASI Vipin and he interrogated and formally
arrested accused on 03.08.2022 vide memo Ex.PW-2/A bearing his
signature at point A and recorded his disclosure statement vide
memo Ex.PW-2/B bearing his signature at point A before
concerned court and recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161
Cr.PC and filed the supplementary charge-sheet u/s 174A IPC
against accused before the concerned court. He has correctly
identified the accused.
5. PW-3 HC Kapil Baliyan has deposed in his examination-in-
chief that on 12.07.2022, he along with ASI Vipin Kumar was
present at the PS Kotwali and on that day, ASI Vipin Kumar
received information from the secret informer that accused namely
Amit @ Mohit who was declared PO in the present case was
standing at Safe Life Foundation situated at Khasra No.457,
Bhopura, Ghaziabad, UP and could be apprehended if raided now.
Thereafter, he along with ASI Vipin Kumar and secret informer
went to the spot and at the instance of the secret informer arrested
accused and name on inquiry was revealed as Amit @ Mohit and
conducted preliminary inquiry with him in which it was revealed
State Vs. Amit @ Mohit
FIR No. 218/2016
PS Kotwali
3/8
that accused was declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dated
12.10.2021 by the court of Ms. Prigya Gupta, Ld. MM, Central,
Delhi in the present case vide FIR No. 218/16 PS Kotwali;
u/s.379/511 IPC within the jurisdiction of PS Kotwali. ASI Vipin
Kumar arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A and carried
out personal search vide personal search memo Ex.PW3/B, both
bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, accused was taken to
AAA hospital for medical examination. Thereafter, Kalandra u/s
41.1 (c) CrPC was prepared by ASI Vipin Kumar. The said kalandra
along with DD no. 84A dated 12.07.2022 Ex.PW3/C bearing his
signature at point A. Accused was produced before the concerned
Court on the next day along with the abovesaid kalandra by him
alongwith ASI Vipin Kumar. Thereafter, HC Ajay Kumar recorded
his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. He has correctly identified accused.
6. PW-4 SI Vipin has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on
12.07.2022 he along with HC Kapil was present at the PS Kotwali
and on that day, he received information from the secret informer
that accused namely Amit @ Mohit who was declared PO in the
present case, was standing at Safe Life Foundation situated at
Khasra No.457, Bhopura, Ghaziabad, UP and could be apprehended
if raided now. Thereafter, he along with HC Kapil and secret
informer went to the spot and at the instance of the secret informer
arrested accused and name on inquiry was revealed as Amit @
Mohit and conducted preliminary inquiry with him in which it was
revealed that accused was declared Proclaimed Offender vide order
dated 12.10.2021 by the court of Ms. Prigya Gupta, Ld. MM,
State Vs. Amit @ Mohit
FIR No. 218/2016
PS Kotwali
4/8
Central, Delhi in the present case vide FIR No. 218/16 PS Kotwali;
u/s.379/511 IPC within the jurisdiction of PS Kotwali. He formally
arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW-3/A and carried out
personal search vide personal search memo Ex.PW-3/B, both
bearing his signature at point B. Accused was taken to AAA
hospital for medical examination. Thereafter, Kalandra u/s 41.1(c)
CrPC was prepared by him. The said kalandra along with DD no.
84A dated 12.07.2022 Ex.PW3/C bearing his signature at point B.
Accused was produced before the concerned Court on the next day
along with the abovesaid kalandra by him alongwith HC Kapil.
Thereafter, IO/HC Ajay Kumar after taking permission from the
court interrogated accused and formally arrested accused vide arrest
memo Ex.PW-2/A bearing his signature at point B. IO recorded his
disclosure statement Ex.PW-2/B bearing his signature at point B.
Thereafter, IO/HC Ajay Kumar recorded his statement u/s 161
Cr.PC. He has correctly identified accused.
7. The prosecution evidence was closed on 29.08.2024 and the
statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 read with
section 281 of CrPC on 25.09.2024, wherein he pleaded his
innocence and stated to have been falsely implicated. The accused
has not opted to lead defence evidence. Final arguments were
heard. I have cogitated over the submissions made by ld. APP for
the state and Ld. Counsel for the accused person.
DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREON:
8. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for state
and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and carefully perused the
State Vs. Amit @ Mohit
FIR No. 218/2016
PS Kotwali
5/8
documents on record.
9. In order to ensure convenient appraisal of evidence, the
following point of determination has been framed.
Whether the accused had absconded or concealing himself that a
process u/s 82 CrPC was issued against him and consequently, he
was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 12.10.2021
and thereby, committed offence u/s 174A IPC.
10. The onus to prove the same shall be on the prosecution.
Section 82 CrPC states that
(1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or
not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has
absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be
executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him
to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty
days from the date of publishing such proclamation.
(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:-
(i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or
village in which such person ordinarily resides;
(b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or
homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some
conspicuous place of such town or village;
(c) a copy thereof shall be affixed 1o some conspicuous part of the
Court House; Procematon te be pulisked f , il newpaper circulating in
the place in which such person ordinarily resides.
(3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the
effect that the proclamation was duly published on specified day, in the
manner specified in clause (i) of subSection (2), shall be conclusive
evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with,
and that the proclamation was published on such day.
(4) Where a proclamation published under sub-Section (1) is in respect
of a person accused of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 304,
364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436,
449, 459 or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and such person
fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the
proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit,
pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that
effect.
(5) The provisions of sub-Sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a
State Vs. Amit @ Mohit
FIR No. 218/2016
PS Kotwali
6/8
declaration made by the Court under sub-Section (4) as they apply to the
proclamation published under sub-Section (1).”
11. It shall be noted that 82 of CrPC clearly provides that the
court may publish a written proclamation against a person requiring
his appearance only after the court has issued warrants and has
reasons to believe that a person against whom warrants have been
issued has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrants
cannot be executed.
12. In the present case, NBWs were issued against the accused on
on 03.09.2016, on 14.03.2017, on 03.12.2018 and on 26.04.2019.
NBWs were received back unexecuted with report that he was not
found at the given address. Consequently, process u/s 82 CrPC was
issued on 19.09.2019. It was reported by the process server that the
Anil was not found at the given address.
13. The Honorable High Court of Delhi in the case of Sunil Tyagi
Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr, AIR Online, 2021 Del
912 laid down certain guidelines for issuing process u/s 82 CrPC.
1. Concealment has to be deliberate for the purpose of avoiding arrest.
The mere fact that the police could not find the accused is not enough.
2. Pre-requisites to the publication of a proclamation under Section
82(2)(ii) CrPC – Prior to publication under Section 82(2)(ii) CrPC the
Police Officer may be mandatorily required to file an Affidavit
disclosing: A picture showing that proclamation has been affixed in a
conspicuous place of the house where the person resides. The picture
must be taken in a manner that makes it clear to the Court that the
proclamation has in fact, been affixed at the said house; The Court must
pass an order dealing with the contents of the Affidavit and statement of
the process server along with its reasons for directing publication under
Section 82(2)(ii).
3. Publication by all three modes essential – Publication by all three
modes namely (i) public reading in some conspicuous place of the
State Vs. Amit @ Mohit
FIR No. 218/2016
PS Kotwali
7/8
town/village in such person ordinarily resides; (ii) affixation at some
conspicuous part of the house or homestead and (iii) affixation at some
conspicuous part of the court house are mandatory under Section 82(2)
CrPC. The failure to comply with all the three modes of publication is to
be considered invalid publication, according to law as the three sub-
clauses (a) to (c) are conjunctive and not disjunctive.
14. Further, the process u/s 82 CrPC was issued and statement of
process server was recorded. However, no clear photographs of
affixation on the notice board of the court or the last known address
of the accused have been annexed. The photographs on record are
absolutely unclear and not indicative of the place at which they
have been affixed. There are no DD entries indicating the visit to
the said address. The publication in newspaper has also not been
done. Hence, the process u/s 82 CrPC has not been executed in
compliance of the mandate of law.
15. Hence, it can be concluded that since the process u/s 82 CrPC
was not duly executed, the accused cannot be held guilty u/s 174A
IPC. Accused, Amit @ Mohit S/o Bhajan Lal, Stands acquitted for
offence u/s 174A IPC.
Announced in the open court Digitally
signed by
SAYESHA
SAYESHA CHADHA
CHADHA Date:
today. 2025.07.14
16:45:48
+0530
(SAYESHA CHADHA)
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
[This judgment contains 8 pages and each page bears the initials of
undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of
undersigned.]
State Vs. Amit @ Mohit
FIR No. 218/2016
PS Kotwali
8/8
[ad_2]
Source link