ANWAR SHEKH vs STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~102 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 05.03.2025 + W.P.(C) 2773/2025 ANWAR SHEKH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shubham Dayma, Adv. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL) CM APPLs.13176/2025 (Exemption from filing original copies etc.) and 13177/2025 (seeking leave to place on record additional documents) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Applications stand disposed of. W.P.(C) 2773/2025 3. The petitioner has filed the present seeking compensation of Rs. 2,08,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Eight Lakhs only) for the malicious prosecution suffered by the petitioner at the hands of the respondents. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in FIR No. 136 of 2017, dated 02.03.2017, registered at Police Station – Central Faridabad, for alleged offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999. 5. The brief background of the matter is that the petitioner owned and operated a tempo bearing No. DL-1-LN-0954. On 02.03.2017, at Keshopur Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2773/2025 Page 1 of 6 By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Date:18.03.2025 15:30:53 Mandi, Delhi, the petitioner was approached by Md. Imtiyaz (Formerly Accused No. 3) for hiring his tempo to transport Aqua Guard machines from Delhi to Faridabad on behalf of customers of his employer Bijender (Formerly Accused No. 4). Since the petitioner was in the routine business of transporting goods, he agreed to the request. 6. During the loading process, the petitioner learned that the customers were Manoj Kumar (Respondent No. 4 & Complainant in FIR) and Ritesh (Prosecution Witness No. 1 in Trial). Both were personal