Interim Order 26

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: SC 317/2023
STATE Vs. KAMAL SINGH @ LANGDA
FIR No. : 285/2022
PS : GULABI BAGH
09.03.2026
At 3:30 pm.
Present: Sh. Alok Saxena, Ld. CPP for the State.
Accused Kamal Singh @ Langda and Pawan @
Tedha produced from JC.
Accused Gaurav @ Haddi produced from JC (on
bail in this case).
Ms. Kanchan Deewan, Ld. Deputy LADC for
accused Gaurav @ Haddi.
Sh. Deepanshu Goswami, Ld. Counsel for accused
Kamal @ Langda.
Sh. R.K.Saini, Ld. Chief LADC for accused Pawan
@ Tedha.
ORDER ON CHARGE
1. Argument on charge have been heard.
2. Ld. CPP for the State stated that there is sufficient material
on record to frame charge u/s 328/379/34 IPC against all the
accused persons; the incident was captured in CCTV footage and
the complainant has identified each of the accused persons and
attributed specific role to them.
3. Ld. Counsel for accused Kamal Singh @ Langda
submitted that there is difference in the number of scooty which
was allegedly used by the accused; in the chargesheet, the
number of the scooty is mentioned as 3962 whereas the scooty
which was actually seized bore number 3964. He further
Page 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
submitted that no site plan of the place from where the scooty
was recovered was prepared; there is difference of two lanes in
the house of the accused Kamal Singh @ Langda and the place
from where the scooty was recovered; the strip recovered from
the scooty was a normal medicine which is used to remove the
effect of alcohol; no recovery of robbed property has been
effected from the accused and the complainant has not been able
to identify the accused in the TIP proceedings.
4. Ld. Counsel for accused Gaurav @ Haddi submitted that
the accused Gaurav @ Haddi is not visible in the CCTV footage;
his name is not mentioned in the FIR; he did not make the
complainant eat anything; the complainant suffered dizziness due
to his physical weakness and there is delay of two days in
registration of the FIR.
5. Ld. Counsel for accused Pawan @ Tedha submitted that no
medical examination of the complainant was conducted to
ascertain if any intoxicating substance was present in his body.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone
through the case file.
7. The present FIR was registered on the complaint of
complainant Ishwar Din Mishra who informed the police that on
21.10.2022 at about 7:00 pm when he was carrying 23 ceiling
fans in his rickshaw, on the way he became dizzy and found
himself lying in grass the next day. He further informed that his
rickshaw and all the ceiling fans were stolen. On 26.10.2022, the
complainant Ishwar Din Mishra again went to the police station
and informed that while he was going to deliver the ceiling fans
Page 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
at Najafgarh, on the way, one person was distributing ladoo at
Roshanara road; he ate a ladoo after which he started feeling
dizzy. When he reached Zakhira underpass, a boy came and
started assisting him in pushing the rickshaw; thereafter, the said
boy asked him to rest for sometime. The said boy was taking to
two another persons who were on scooty. When the complainant
Ishar Din Mishra started getting unconscious, two persons on the
scooty went away whereas the boy who assisted him in pushing
the rickshaw took away his rickshaw.
8. During investigation, CCTV footage was checked which
confirmed the complainant’s version. It was found that accused
Kamal Singh @ Langda was driving scooty No. DL 4SU 3964;
the scooty was recovered from his house; the registered owner of
the scooty also confirmed that the scooty was in possession of
accused Kamal Singh @ Langda; the medicine used to intoxicate
the complainant was also recovered from the scooty.
Investigation further revealed that accused Gaurav @ Haddi was
seen in the CCTV footage as the person who helped the
complainant in pushing his rickshaw and as the person who took
away his rickshaw. Accused Pawan @ Tedha was seen in the
CCTV footage near the Kiryana Store near Zakhira Flyover from
where the loaded rickshaw of the complainant was stolen.
9. Accused Gaurav @ Haddi refused to participate in TIP
proceedings but he was identified by the complainant during JC
remand; accused Pawan @ Tedha was correctly identified by the
complainant in TIP proceedings. Accused Kamal Singh @
Langda could not be correctly identified by the complainant in
Page 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
TIP proceedings but in his supplementary statement, he stated
that due to fear he was unable to identify him correctly.
10. So far as variance in the number of scooty is concerned, it
appears to be only a typographical mistake as at several other
places in the chargesheet, the scooty number is correctly
mentioned as DL 4SCU 3964; in the seizure memo also, the
scooty number is correctly mentioned; the notice u/s 133
M.V.Act was also given to the owner of scooty No. DL 4SCU
3964.
11. From the contents of the FIR, statement of the witnesses
recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C and the documents collected during the
investigation, prima facie case for commission of offence u/s
328/379/34 IPC is made out against all the accused persons.
12. Put up on 20.03.2026 for framing of charge.
(Nishant Garg)
ASJ-06 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
09.03.2026
Page 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --