Final Order 1

Order Details: Order
Pdf Text: 1 Judgment in C. C. No.3016/PW/2018
Filed on .. 03.11.2018
Registered on .. 03.11.2018
Delivered on .. 19.09.2025
Duration .. 06Y 10M 16D
CNR No.MHMM-1901-1831-2018
Exh.14
IN THE COURT METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ,
65th COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(Presided over by Hashmi H.A.H.I.)
(Judgment as per Sec. 355 of the Cr.P.C.)
(a) The serial number of the
case;
: C.C. No.3016/PW/2018
(b) The date of commission of
offence;
On 22.12.2017
(c) The name of the informant,
if any;
: Through PSO Andheri Police
Station (CR No.648/2017)
(d) The name of the accused
person, his parentage and
residence;
: 1. Parmeshwar Devtadin Morya
Age : 43 years
Occupation : Nil
2. Shahrukh Nabi Sayyad
Age : 24 years
Occupation : Nil
3. Manoj Mahendra Gamta
(Abated )
4. Ramesh @ Papa Devtadin
Mourya- 41 years
Occupation : Nil
All R/o. Andheri (E), Mumbai.
(e) The offence complained of
or proved;
: U/Sec.326, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the
Indian Penal Code
-- 1 of 6 --
2 Judgment in C. C. No.3016/PW/2018
(f) The plea of the accused and
his examination, (if any);
: Accused pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order; : Accused are acquitted
(h) The date of such order; : 19.09.2025
Appearance : Ld. APP. Prakash Shejal for the State
Ld. Adv. Yadav for the accused
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 19.09.2025)
1. Accused have been charge-sheeted for the offences
punishable U/Sec.326, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short “IPC”).
The prosecution case in short is as follows :-
On 22.12.2017 at 24.00 hrs., near Andheri Railway station,
Platform No.8, Andheri (E), Mumbai, accused Ramesh and Gamta
alongwith other accused in furtherance of their common intention,
voluntarily caused grievous hurt to informant viz. Ashwin Nafesingh
Chandelia by means of iron rod on his hand, back and head. Thereafter,
informant lodged report against the accused. On the basis of report
Andheri Police station has registered an offence bearing Crime
No.648/2017. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer has
recorded statement of witnesses, prepared spot panchanama as well as
seizure panchanama, seized iron rod, collected medical certificate from
the hospital. After completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet
against the accused.
2. During the trial accused no.3 Manoj Mahendra Gamta got
expired and case abated against him. Therefore, I have framed charge
-- 2 of 6 --
3 Judgment in C. C. No.3016/PW/2018
against the remaining accused vide Exh.4 on dtd. 19.09.2025 and it
read over and explained to accused in vernacular, to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence is of total
denial and false implication.
3. As there is no any incriminating evidence against accused,
therefore statement of accused U/sec. 313 of Criminal Procedure Code
stands dispensed with.
4. Following points arise for my determination and I have
recorded findings thereon for the reasons discussed herein after :-
S.NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1 Does prosecution prove that on 22.12.2017 at
24.00 hrs., near Andheri Railway station,
Platform No.8, Andheri (E), Mumbai, accused
Ramesh and Gamta alongwith other accused in
furtherance of their common intention,
voluntarily caused grievous hurt to informant
viz. Ashwin Nafesingh Chandelia by means of
iron rod on his hand, back and head and
thereby committed an offence punishable
u/sec. 326 r/w. 34 of IPC?
...Not
proved
-- 3 of 6 --
4 Judgment in C. C. No.3016/PW/2018
2 Does prosecution prove that accused on above
said date, time and place in furtherance of
their common intention, intentionally insulted
by abusing the informant and witness and
thereby gave provocation to him intending that
such provocation would cause him to break the
public peace and thereby committed an offence
punishable U/sec.504 r/w 34 of the IPC?
...Not
proved
3 Does prosecution prove that accused on the
aforesaid date, time and place in furtherance of
their common intention committed criminal
intimidation by threatening the informant and
thereby committed an offence p/u/sec. 506
r/w. 34 of IPC ?
...Not
proved
4 What order ? Accused
are
acquitted
R E A S O N S
As to points No. 1 to 4 :
5. In order to prove guilt of the accused, the prosecution has
examined only one witness i.e. P.W. No.1 Ashwin Nafesingh Chandaliya
at Exh.8. Thereafter, the prosecution filed evidence closed pursis,
therefore, evidence of prosecution closed by passing order below Exh.1.
6. P.W. No.1 informant Ashwin Nafesingh Chandaliya has
deposed that he was present in Andheri on 22.12.2017. Some unknown
persons has beaten him, therefore, he sustained injury on his cheek.
Thereafter, he had lodged the report against the accused but he doesn’t
remember it contents. FIR Exh.9 bears his signature but he doesn’t
-- 4 of 6 --
5 Judgment in C. C. No.3016/PW/2018
remember it contents. As the witness not supported the prosecution
case, Ld. A.P.P. sought the permission to cross-examine to him. During
the cross-examination conducted by Ld. APP, he admitted that, the
matter has been settled between him and accused out of court,
therefore, there is no dispute between him and accused and he doesn’t
want to proceed with this matter.
7. It is pertinent to note that, the informant is not supporting to
the prosecution, hence, nothing incriminating evidence came on record
against the accused. It is also pertinent to note that from the evidence of
prosecution, it appears that the compromise took place between
informant and accused, therefore, the prosecution has not examined
further evidence in this matter. Considering facts and circumstances, I
come to the conclusion that prosecution has not proved the case against
the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, I answered points No.1
to 4 are in the negative and for answering point No.5, I pass following
order :-
ORDER
1) Accused viz.1. Parmeshwar Devtadin Morya , 2. Shahrukh
Nabi Sayyad and 4. Ramesh @ Papa Devtadin Mourya are
acquitted vide Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. for the offences
punishable U/Sec.326, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2) Bail bonds of accused stands cancelled.
3) Accused are directed to furnish P.B. of Rs.15,000/- each
for appearance before the Hon'ble Appellate Court, in case
appeal is filed against the judgment of this Court vide Section
437(A) of the Cr.P.C.
-- 5 of 6 --
6 Judgment in C. C. No.3016/PW/2018
4) Seized muddemal i.e. iron rod being worthless be
destroyed after appeal period is over.
5) Judgment dictated & declared in an open Court.
Date : 19.09.2025 (Hashmi H.A.H.I.)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
65th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
ask
Dictated &
typed on : 19.09.2025
Signed on : 19.09.2025
-- 6 of 6 --