Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C.C.No.3373/PW/2018
Received on : 18/12/2018
Registered on : 18/12/2018
Decided on : 31/03/2023
Duration : 04 Y. 03 M. 13 D.
Exh. : 05
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
44TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY A. I. SHAIKH)
(JUDGMENT U/SEC. 355 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE)
C.N.R NO.MHMM190149032018
(a) The serial No. of the case; : C.C.No.3373/PW/2018
(b) The date of commission of
the offence;
: 17/01/2016
(c) The name of the
complainant
(if any);
: The State (Versova Police
Station in C. R. No. 23/2016).
(d) The name of the accused
person and his parentage
and residence;
: 1] Smt. Soni Ismail Dandekar,
Age – 50 Yrs.
Occupation – Housewife,
2] Khalil Kamruddin
Chougule,
Age – 44 Yrs.
Occupation – Nil,
3] Kumari Heena Salim
Shaikh,
Age – 24 Yrs.
Occupation – Nil,
-- 1 of 7 --
2 C.C.No.3373/PW/2018
4] Smt Jaibunnisa Abdul
Kadar Shaikh,
Age – 66 Yrs.
Occupation – Housewife,
All R/o.Room No. K 18,
Building no.5,
Johara Aghadi Nagar Co.Op.
Hou. Society,
Yari Road, Versova,
Andheri (W), Mumbai.
(e) The offence complained of
or proved ;
: Under Sections 143, 147, 354,
452, 506 read with 149 of
Indian Penal Code.
(f) The plea of the accused and
his examination (if any);
: Accused are pleaded not guilty.
(g) The final order; : All the accused are acquitted.
(h) The date of such order; : 31/03/2023
Ms.Seema Mokal, Ld. APP for the State.
Mr.Akib Akil Chogle, Advocate for all accused.
J U D G M E N T
( Delivered on 31/03/2023. )
The accused are prosecuted for the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 354, 452, 506 read with 149 of Indian Penal
Code.
2. It is the case of the prosecution is that on 17/01/2016 at
about 1.00 p.m. the accused were came to the office of informant and
told they want to talk with her husband. She told them please go
outside but they did not heard. Accused no.2 pushed her by keeping his
-- 2 of 7 --
3 C.C.No.3373/PW/2018
hand on her breast and went to the house. Thereafter, her husband
came out and asked accused no.2 how they were entered inside. He
told him that they came for calling him. Informant told her husband
that accused no.2 came inside on pushing her breast. Therefore, her
husband asked him about the same. Therefore, accused no.2
threatened her husband. Thereafter, accused persons went from her
office. Hence, she lodged report against the accused persons.
3. On the basis of the report given by the informant, crime
No. 23/2016 came to be registered against the accused persons. I.O.
arrested the accused. During further investigation I.O. prepared spot
panchanama, recorded statement of witnesses and after completion of
investigation filed chargesheet.
4. My learned predecessor framed charge against the accused
for the above mentioned offences. The accused are pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined only one
witness in this case. As no incriminating evidence came on record in
the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be dispensed
with.
5. The points for determination alongwith my findings
thereon as under :
POINTS FINDINGS
1] Does the prosecution prove that accused
no.1 to 4 alongwith abated accused
In the negative
-- 3 of 7 --
4 C.C.No.3373/PW/2018
Ranbahadur Singh Bohara, were the
members of an unlawful assembly having
common object to commit offence?
2] Does the prosecution prove that accused
no.1 to 4 alongwith abated accused
Ranbahadur Singh Bohara,were the
member of an unlawful assembly that in
prosecution of their common object of the
said assembly to committed offence of
rioting?
In the negative
3] Does the prosecution prove that the
accused no.2 in furtherance of their
common intention with accused no.1,3
and 4 alongwith abated accused
Ranbahadur Singh Bohara, were the
members of an unlawful assembly that in
prosecution of their common object used
criminal force to informant Alia
Navajuddin Siddhiqui i.e. by pushing her
breast by hand with intent to outrage her
modesty by such criminal force?
In the negative
4] Does the prosecution prove that accused
no.1 to 4 alongwith abated accused
Ranbahadur Singh Bohara, were the
members of an unlawful assembly that in
prosecution of their common object
committed housetrespass by entering into
the office of informant, which used as a
human dwelling or as a place of custody of
In the negative
-- 4 of 7 --
5 C.C.No.3373/PW/2018
goods, having made preparations to cause
hurt to the informant and witnesses?
5] Does the prosecution prove that accused
no.1 to 4 alongwith abated accused
Ranbahadur Singh Bohara, were the
members of an unlawful assembly that in
prosecution of their common object
committed criminal intimidation by
threatening the informant with intent to
cause an alarm to her ?
In the negative
6] What order ? All the accused
are acquitted.
REASONS
AS TO POINTS NO. 1 TO 5:
6. These points are interconnected with each other, therefore,
they are taken up together for consideration and determination.
7. Ravikiran Dnyaneshwar Nale, investigating officer (P.W.1)
deposes at Exh.4 in the year 2016 he was attached to Versova police
station as PSI. Lady PSI Gaikwad has registered crime no.23/2016 as
per the version of informant. Informant has shown the spot and he
prepared spot panchanama in the presence of panchas. Accused were
entered in the office of informant by unlawful assembly and pushed and
beaten her.
8. During his crossexamination he admitted that the crime
no.22/2016 was registered before the complaint lodged against the
-- 5 of 7 --
6 C.C.No.3373/PW/2018
accused. He denied that as the informant is the wife of famous actor,
she pressurized them for lodging the complaint. He further denied that
he filed false chargesheet. He also denied that for giving trouble to
accused persons informant lodged false complaint.
9. I have carefully gone through the record. The prosecution
failed to examine informant and other witnesses. However, as per police
report the informant is not traceable as he is shifted at Dubai. Number
of times summons were issued to the witnesses but they are unserved.
The prosecution has examined only one witness in this case i.e.
Ravikiran Dnyaneshwar Nale, investigating officer (P.W. 1). He is
formal witness. The prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled
against the accused. Hence, I answer Points No. 1 to 5 in the negative.
AS TO POINT NO.6:
10. The prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused
persons. Therefore, the accused are liable to be acquitted. In the result,
in answer to Point No.6, I pass the following order:
ORDER
1 The accused No.1 Smt. Soni Ismail Dandekar, accused No.2
Khalil Kamruddin Chougule, accused No.3 Kumari Heena
Salim Shaikh, accused No.4 Smt Jaibunnisa Abdul Kadar
Shaikh are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 354, 452, 506 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code
vide Section 248 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
-- 6 of 7 --
7 C.C.No.3373/PW/2018
2 Bail bonds of the accused stands cancelled.
3 The accused no. 1 to 4 to execute P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) each vide Section 437–A of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for appearance before the
higher court, if said court issues notice to them for their
appearance.
The Judgment is transcribed directly on the computer and
pronounced in open Court.
(A. I. Shaikh)
Date : 31/03/2023 Metropolitan Magistrate,
44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
spj
Typed on : 31.03.2023
Signed on : 31.03.2023
-- 7 of 7 --