Tutorial Submission

Criminal Case Report

Submitted by

Name of the candidate -Rishabh Singh

Division – ‘D’,
PRN – 17010324116,

Class – 10th Semester of BBA LLB

“Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad”

“Symbiosis International (Deemed) University, PUNE”

In

February 2022

Under the guidance of

Dr. Anita Sable

Faculty-in-charge
 CRIMINAL CASE REPORT 

BEFORE LD. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE Ist - CLASS,

NEW DELHI SESSION COURT, DELHI

CRIMINAL CASE NO. - 1120/2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE OF DELHI

PROSECUTION

AND

RADHA KRISHNA BANSIWALA

S/O LATE SH. LAL BANSIWALA

R/O 16/985-E, RAPTINAGAR,

TANK ROAD, SHAM BAGH, NEW DELHI-110005

COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

MOHAN DWAPARA

S/O SH. RAM DWAPARA,

R/O 16/909-E, RAPTINAGAR,

TANK ROAD, SHAM BAGH, NEW DELHI-110005

  ACCUSED
Facts In Brief

1. That the Radha Krishna Bansiwala is 40 year old businessman by profession residing at
16/985-E Raptinagar, Tank Road, Sham Bagh, New Delhi-5 and the defendant is 35 year
old Advocate by profession residing at 16/909- E, Raptinagar, Tank Road, Sham Bagh,
New Delhi-5.

2. That both the complainant and the accused had mutually decided to give builder namely
Sh. Jagdish Kumar s/o Late Sh. Prabhu Dayal r/o 5547/74, Regar Pura, Karol Bagh, New
Delhi-5 for constructing the floors over their property.

3. That accordingly, the said builder had constructed the basement, ground floor, first floor,
second floor and third floor over the aforesaid properties. Since, the aforesaid property
was adjacent to each other, it was agreed that the builder would construct combined
basement and ground floor over both the properties. It was further agreed that the builder
would take the entire ground floor constructed over the aforesaid combined properties
against cost of his construction of all the floors built over the aforesaid properties and it
was further agreed that the plaintiff and defendant will be owner of the combined
basement in equal shares along with all ownership rights and enjoyment thereof and the
remaining floors excluding basement have also been divided between the complainant
and accused.

4. That the complainant and the accused had also entered into agreement of Declaration vide
dt. 10th Jan-2017. As per the said agreement, both the plaintiff and defendant had decided
to combine their basement having 22 sq. yds. approximately each subject to the condition
that upto seven years from the date of this Declaration, they shall not sell/transfer the said
combined basement to anyone and during the said period of seven years, the said
basement (with combined area of 44 sy. Yds. approximately.) will be let out on rent and
they will divide its rent in equal proportionate i.e. 50:50.

5. That it was further agreed in the aforesaid declaration agreement that if after the expiry of
seven years the said property is sold out, then its sale consideration amount will also be
divided by the parties in equal proportionate i.e. 50:50.

6. That the after executing of the aforesaid agreement, the accused had not acted upon the
terms and conditions of the same as he did not let out the property on rent despite of the
 fact that the said basement is located in the busy market of Tank Road, and the basement
could have been easily let out to the tenants. The complainant had made numerous
requests as to let out the basement on rent and divide the same into equal ratio i.e. 50:50
as agreed between them by virtue of the aforesaid agreement. But the accused instead of
conceding to the requests of the complainant, pressurized him to sell the entire basement
at much lower than the market price, otherwise, he would not give his consent as to let
out the basement. The complainant was not agreed at all to sale his half share of his
basement as demanded and pressurized by the accused. However, he made further
request, if the accused does not want to let out, the basement be partitioned as agreed
between them into two equal shares of 22 sq. yds. each i.e. having area of 6 ½ x 28 ft.
each having two separate front entrances/gates/shutters having equal measurement. But
the accusedt had also refused to do so.

7. That on 10/01/2021, Complainant called the Accused at same disputed property basement
for settling up the issue. During the conversation, Accused was pressurizing the
complainant to sell the entire basement at much lower price than the market price,
otherwise, he would not give his consent as to let out the basement but complainant was
not agreed at all to sale his half share of his basement. As conversation went on further,
the talk got heated enough, Accused Mr. Mohan Dwapara, slapped Mr. Radha Krishna
Bansiwala and threaten him for not giving his share of basement property.

8. Due to that Complainant filed a FIR on 11/01/2021 against Accused Mr. Mohan Dwapara
in Tank Road Police Station for slapping and threating him.

9. Due to that since the accused has not complied the terms of the aforesaid agreement vide
dt. 10.1.2017, the aforesaid property i.e. basement is lying locked having locks of both the
complainant and accused, the complainant filed separate suit for specific performance and
temporary injunction.
DATE  STAGES  COURTS OBSERVATIONS/ORDERS
11/01/2021 FIR Lodged in Police Station
21/01/2021 Summoned issued
21/02/2021 Investigation order
10/03/2021 Police Report submitted by
Police submitted its Police Report to Court
police
after doing all its investigation. Court
02/04/2021 Framing of Charges
 
Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, a FIR is registered against
Accused Mr. Mohan Dwapara in Tank
Road Police Station for slapping and
threating Mr. Radha Krishna Bansiwala.
Court issued summoun against Accused Mr.
Mohan Dwapara for remaining present
before court in next hearing date of
21/02/2021
Accused Mr. Mohan Dwapara presented
himself before the Court, he promised court
for giving all his assistance to police in
investigation. Court ordered Police to do
their investigation and produce their police
report on next hearing date of 10/03/2021
ordered for next date of 02/04/2021 for
framing of charges.
In summons trials, charges are not framed
in writing. As accused Mr. Mohan Dwapara
appeared before the court then the
Magistrate orally stated the facts to him, for
which he was answerable.
02/04/2021 Plea of Guilty
After stating of facts, the accused Mr.
Mohan Dwapara get ready to make
confession. before taking the confession,
Magistrate explained to accused that he is
not bound to make a confession and that, if
he does so, any confession he may make
may be used as evidence against him and
Magistrate believe that this confession was
voluntarily made. It was taken in my
presence and hearing, and was read over to
the person making it and admitted by him to
be correct, and it contains a full and true
account of the statement made by accused.
After the Magistrate address, the accused
Mr. Mohan Dwapara pleads himself guilty
and accepted that all the act stated in facts
above are done by him. the Magistrate
recorded the statement in the words of the
accused.
After hearing and noting down the matter,
Court reserved its judgment for next
hearing date of 20/04/2021
 As accused Mr. Mohan Dwapara was not
20/04/2021 Judgment
habitual offender and pleaded himself guilty
for the offence done by him, Court declared
that the prosecution has been successful to
bring home guilt of the accused beyond the
shadow of reasonable, with regard to
commission of offence punishable under
sec. 323 of I.P.C read with section 319 of
I.P.C. Hence, Court Fined accused Mr.
Mohan Dwapara for one thousand rupees.

YOUR OBSERVATION IN THIS CASE:-

A]  CHARGES framed.

1. Whether the prosecution has been successful to bring home guilt of the accused beyond
the shadow of reasonable, with regard to commission of offence punishable under sec.
323 of I.P.C read with section 319 of I.P.C?
 
B] Applicable Statutes in the Case and the respective provisions in detail.

1. SECTION 319 OF I.P.C – HURT

Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.

2. SECTION 323 OF I.P.C - Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt

Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or
with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

 
I undertake that the matter and the stages in the matter has been observed by me carefully and
I have understood the procedure in the mentioned case. 

Date of submission- 20/02/2022 Name of the Student- Rishabh Singh

Sem- Xth  , Division- D
Place- Delhi PRN- 17010324116