CAMPUS LAW CENTRE,

FACULTY OF LAW,
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
(2023-24)

INTERNSHIP DIARY (2023-24)

Submitted by-
Ashwani Kumar Yadav
Section: A, 5th Semester
Roll No.:21309806231
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.no. Particulars Page no.

1 Internship certificate 3
2 Week 1 4
3 Week 2 5-7
4 Week 3 7-11
5 Week 4 12
6 Drafted document 1 13-16

7 Drafted document 2 17-22

 CERTIFICATE

The document attached herein are the true copy of the certificate received in lieu of the
work undertaken during the course of my internship and the drafts prepared by me for
the drafting purposes.
WEEK 1:

I did my legal internship at DELHI with Advocate Arvind Kumar during

summer break from 1 August to 31 August 2023. He is a well-known
practitioner at Delhi district courts and high court of Delhi. He has a chamber
at Tis Hazari courts numbered as V36.
On my 1st day of internship I reported to Mr. Arvind Kumar who took me to
the Tis Hazari courts room no. 152 in the matter of Rajesh Kumar Rathi Vs
Santosh And Others. Where he make me aware of all staffs involved in court
proceedings such as Reader, Steno, Alhmad and of course our lordships and
their duty or job.
In this week he make me aware of how to use the different website which are
related to courts namely E-courts, Delhi High Court’s website, supreme court of
India’s website.
He also give me to read file of State vs Hardeep whenever I used to read a case
file I always kept Bare Acts with me and used to go through it wherever the
provisions where in question.
I also used to make notes of the case files which I used to read which includes brief
facts of the case, legal issues involved in it, provisions of law which was applied in
that particular case, arguments raised from our side, case laws if any cited in that
petition/application and finally prayer raised in that case.
Learnings of this week
 How to maintain chamber diary.
 How to download interlocutory order.
 How to download cause list of district court and High Court of Delhi.
 How to check which item no. is going in any particular court room no. of
High Court of Delhi or Supreme Court of Delhi.
 Also make me aware of hybrid mode of court proceedings.
 I also learnt about how to file PF.
 Week 2:
In this week he assigned me to research on two topics and took me to different
courts to observe the proceedings.

Research 1:- To find judgements on anticipatory bail granted in sec. 420 of

IPC.

I find 2 judgments relevant for our case and the judgements are given below

1. Ravindra Saxena vs State of Rajasthan, (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases

684.
The hon’ble Supreme court observes that we find a great deal of substance
in Mr. Tarkunde’s submission that since denial of bail amounts to
deprivation of personal liberty, the court should lean against the imposition
of unnecessary restrictions on the scope of Section 438, especially when no
such restrictions have been imposed by the legislature in the terms of that
section. Section 438 is a procedural provision which is concerned with the
personal liberty of the individual, who is entitled to the benefit of the
presumption of innocence since he is not, on the date of his application for
anticipatory bail, convicted of the offence in respect of which he seeks bail.
An overgenerous infusion of constraints and conditions which are not to be
found in Section 438 can make its provisions constitutionally vulnerable
since the right to personal freedom cannot be made to depend on compliance
with unreasonable restrictions. The beneficent provision contained in
Section 438 must be saved, not jettisoned. No doubt can linger after the
decision in Maneka Gandhi that in order to meet the challenge of Article 21
of the Constitution, the procedure established by law for depriving a person
of his liberty must be fair, just and reasonable. Section 438, in the form in
which it is conceived by the legislature, is open to no exception on the
ground that it prescribes a procedure which is unjust or unfair. We ought, at
all costs, to avoid throwing it open to a constitutional challenge by reading
words in it which are not to be found therein. And held that in our opinion,
 the High Court erred in not considering the Application for anticipatory bail
in accordance with law. The defence put Forward by the appellant cannot
be obliterated at this stage itself. We are also of the opinion, that the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant That the dispute herein
is purely of a civil nature cannot be brushed aside at This stage. We,
therefore, grant anticipatory bail to the appellant in the case pending on the
basis of FIR No. 107 of 2007 registered at Police Station. Vidhyadhar
Nagar, Jaipur City under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC now Pending
only under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. It is directed that in the event of
arrest the appellant shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the
Investigating officer. It is also directed that the appellant shall join
Investigation as and when required.
One day while I was going to the court with my senior he asked me do you
know under which section FIR is registered for rash and negligent driving I
was unable to tell I told him under sec 304A he says it is not correct then
when we went back to chamber he told me that FIR for rash and negligent
driving will be registered under sec 279 IPC and if there is simple hurt by it
then he will be punished under sec 334 IPC , if hurt is of grievous nature
then he will be punished under sec 337 IPC and if victim dies then offender
will be punished under sec 304A. Then he asked me to read all of these
sections.

Court proceedings observed by me with my senior.

1. Ishant Khanna vs Himanshi Ahalwat

I observed here that how the mutual divorce happens. First we have to present the
plaint before court then the judge will ask the party some necessary questions like
is there any influence, you are doing this with your free will etc. then there
statement will be recorded and after recording statement they will sign the statement
and 1st motion done. By same process second motion is also done.
 2. Harinath vs Sonia
This was the case of maintenance in the proceeding of this case I observed that
while deciding the maintenance court takes the income affidavit of both parties.

3. State vs Rahul
This was the case of Theft and we got bail on the ground that no previous case
was registered against him and no eyewitness was present.

4. State vs Banwari Lal

This case was listed for prosecution witness and I observed that PP call one
witness at one time and ask questions from them and reader was recording
answers the nature of questions are of 3 types first one was simple second one
was suggesting questions third one was leading question my senior objected the
leading question.

Week 3:

In this week I got one research to do and observed some court proceedings.

RESEARCH 2

• What is cognizance and whether issuing of summon will amount to

taking of cognizance ?

Before doing legal research I read the legal meaning of cognizance which
means to apply judicial mind to the determine legal matter and also read

• S.173(2) CrPC which states that as soon as investigation is completed, the

officer in charge of the police station shall forward to the Magistrate
empowered to take cognizance of the offence on police report.
• S.190 of CrPC provides that Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence –

• upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence.

• upon police report of such facts
• upon information received from any person other than police officer or
upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
• S.193 of CrPC states that except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code
or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take
cognizance of any offence as court of original jurisdiction unless the case has
been committed to it by the Magistrate under this Code.
• S.200 of CrPC states that Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on
complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present.

BALVEER SINGH & ANR. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN SC (10/5/2016)

It was held that -

• The Magistrate has role to play while committing the case to the Court
of Session Magistrate upon taking cognizance on police report submitted under
S.173(2) CrPC and in event the Magistrate disagrees with the police report, he
has two choices. He may act on the basis of a protest petition that may be filed,
or he may, while disagreeing with the police report, issue process and summon
the accused. Thereafter, if on being prima facie satisfied that a case had been
made out to proceed against the persons named in Column 2 of the report, he
may proceed to try the said persons or if he is satisfied that a case had been
made out which was triable by the Court of Session, he must commit the case
to the Court of Session to proceed further in the matter. Further, if the
Magistrate decides to proceed against the persons accused, he would have to
proceed on the basis of the police report itself and either inquire into the matter
or commit it to the Court of Session if the same is found to be triable by the
Sessions Court.
• Cognizance of an offence can only be taken once. In the event, a
Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and then commits the case to the
Court of Session, the question of taking fresh cognizance of the offence and,
thereafter, proceeding to issue summons, is not in accordance with law. If
cognizance is to be taken of the offence, it could be taken either by the
Magistrate or by the Court of Session.

RAGHUBANS DUBEY VS STATE OF BIHAR SC (1967 2 SCR 423)

It was held that once cognizance of an offence is taken it becomes the

Court's duty to find out who the offenders really are and if the Court finds that
apart from the persons sent up by the police some other persons are involved,
it is its duty to proceed against those persons by summoning them because 'the
summoning of the additional accused is part of the proceeding initiated by its
taking cognizance of an offence.

HARERAM SATPATHY VS TIKARAM AGARWALA SC (1978 4SCC 58)

The ratio of Raghubans Dubey case was affirmed in this case and it was held
that if Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence on police report and if
from perusal of the record he appears to have satisfied himself that there
were prima facie grounds for issuing process against the respondents. He
cannot be said to be acting without authority.

FAKHRUDDIN AHMAD VS STATE OF UTTARANCHAL SC ((2008) 17

SCC 157)

It was held that What is `taking cognizance' has not been defined in the
Criminal Procedure Code, and I have no desire now to attempt to define it. It
seems to me clear, however, that before it can be said that any Magistrate has
taken cognizance of any offence under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC, he must not
only have applied his mind to the contents of the petition, but he must have
done so for the purpose of proceeding in a particular way as indicated in the
subsequent provisions of this Chapter, proceeding under Section 200, and
thereafter sending it for enquiry and report under Section 202. When the
Magistrate applies his mind not for the purpose of proceeding under the
subsequent sections of this Chapter, but for taking action of some other kind,
e.g., ordering investigation under Section 156(3), or issuing a search warrant
for the purpose of the investigation, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance
of the offence."

SANJAY BANSAL & ANR. VS JAWAHAR LAL VATS AND ORS SC

(2009 (1) SCC Crl.262)

It was held that the position is now well-settled that upon receipt of a police
report under Section 173(2) a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an
offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code even if the police report is to the
effect that no case is made out against the accused. The Magistrate can take
into account the statements of the witnesses examined by the police during the
investigation and take cognizance of the offence complained of and order the
issue of process to the accused. Section 190(1)(b) does not lay down that a
Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only if the Investigating Officer
gives an opinion that the investigation has made out a case against the accused.
The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating
Officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the
investigation and take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, exercise of
his powers under Section 190(1)(b) and direct the issue of process to the
accused.
 SUKARN SINGH TOMAR VS STATE OF MP MPHC (9/12/2016)

It has been held that once the Magistrate commits the case to the Court of
Session, the bar of Section 193 is lifted and the Court of Session has complete
and unfettered jurisdiction of the Court of original jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the offence, which would include summoning of person or
persons whose complicity in the commission of crime can prima facie be
gathered from the material available on record even though the trial in the case
has not commenced. It is also settled principle of law that once a case is
committed, section 193 of CrPC. comes to play, and therefore, learned Sessions
Judge has rightly dealt with the application of the complainant under Section
193 of CrPC. though it was filed along with Section 319 of CrPC.

Court proceedings observed by me

1. State vs Ravi Adhikari
This case was listed for Arguments on charge and I observed that while arguing on
charge we focus on the relevant sections and their essential whether all essentials
are fulfilled or not.
2. Nitin Ahlawat vs Priyanka
This case was fresh case filed by husband for the decree on divorce and I
observed that on the very first day judge order for litigation charges in favour
of wife irrespective of her economic condition for a sum of minimum Rs.
11000.
3. State vs Hardeep
This case was listed for bail in 307 IPC and bail got dismissed. On the ground
that accused was declared PO and the FIR was named one.
Week 4:

In this week I got opportunity to draft various documents and observe quite few
court proceedings.

Court proceedings observed by me

1. State vs Ravindar Bhola
This case was listed for interim bail on the ground that the mother of the
accused was died and no male member of his family were there for last
rites and bail was granted.
2. Abhay Bansal vs Satyam Metal
This case was listed for Evidence in the court and defendant gives his
evidence by way of affidavit.
3. Rakesh Kumar vs Pinki
This case was referred to mediation by the family court I observed that
mediation is best way to settle the matter in fast manner.
Documents drafted by me
1. WS to a probate petition.
2. Bail application under sec 439.

It was very good learning experience of doing internship under Adv. Arvind Kumar
as he used to share some knowledge of law and its application in the court
proceedings.
 IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
(Bail Application No. _________ of 2023)

In the matter of;

State

Versus

Shahrukh
FIR no.: 99/2019
U/S: - 302/307/34 of IPC
P.S.: Timarpur, DELHI

The applicant being in custody - (Date of arrest 24 .02.2019)

Shahrukh son of Naeem, Aged – about 28 years, resident of H.No – C-

209, Gali no. 6 Chauhan Bangar main road Jafrabad, Delhi -110053

APPLICATION FOR BAIL U/S 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE, 1973 ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT/ACCUSED –
SHAHRUKH.

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1. That the present application for bail is the first one on behalf
of the applicant/accused – Shahrukh before the Hon’ble Court
 and prior to this no application of such nature was filed in any
other court. That neither any application of such nature is
pending disposal anywhere in any court of law.

2. That the applicant/accused is a permanently residing in Delhi.

That the applicant is engaged in the private job at Burari Delhi.
As such, it is submitted that the applicant is not involved in
any alleged offence as mentioned in the FIR.

3. That the family of the petitioner is at verge of the starvation and

there is no male member in the family of the accused to arrange
the marriage of his sister and bread and butter for his family
reasonably.

4. That as per the applicant he was not involved in the alleged

activity or incident mentioned in the FIR, even he did not know
about where such incident was happened and how the
complainant got injured. Even the above-mentioned FIR is not
named against him.

5. That the accused has been in the police custody since

24.02.2019 and no fruitful purpose shall be served if the
applicant remains detained any longer. Inasmuch as the arrest
and detention of the accused is illegal and without any reason
of fault.

6. It is submitted that the ensuing trial in the matter is likely to

take a long time. It is further submitted that the applicant is
only 28-year-old.
7. That the applicant is a 28 years old young boy working in a
shop.

8. That he has the bright prospects in life but the prolonged

judicial custody of him shall destroy his future. That he was
born & brought up in Delhi. That he has long roots in the
society and permanently resides with his parents and siblings
at H.No – C- 209, Gali no. 6 Chauhan Bangar main road
Jafrabad, Delhi -110053 .which has been verified by the police.
Hence, there is no probability of his running away or
absconding from the society, in case he is released on bail.

9. It is pertinent to submit that the present accused was arrested

on the disclosure statement of co-accused. It is further
submitted that that there is no CCTV footage of such incident
is available.

10. It is submitted that 2 TIP were conducted but the witness could
not identify the accused persons.

11. It is submitted that the interim bail was granted to accused for
7 days on 14.12.2022 and after expiry of said period he
surrenders himself before the trail court. It is further submitted
that the interim bail was extended till 03.01.2023 and again
accused surrenders himself before the trail court.

12. That there is no likelihood of his jumping the bail or tempering

any of the prosecution evidence.

13. That the applicant undertakes to abide all terms and conditions
which this Hon’ble Court impose upon him.
 14. That the applicant is ready to furnish the reliable surety to the
entire satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court.

15. That the applicant has not filed any other bail application
under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

PRAYER

In view of the facts & circumstances, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court
be pleased to admit the applicant/accused – Shahrukh son of Naeem,
Aged – about 22 years, resident of H.No – C- 209, Gali no. 6, Chauhan
Bangar main road Jafrabad, Delhi -110053. to bail on such terms and
conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest
of justice.

Any other relief as deemed fit & proper in the circumstances of

the case may also be awarded in favour of the applicant/accused.

Delhi
Dated; 27.08.2023
Submitted by:-

Arvind (Advocates/Counsel for accused)

Ch. No. 265A, Western Wing,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi – 110054.
 IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE

SOUTHWEST, DWARKA, NEW DELHI.

IN THE PROBATE PETITION NO ________ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER Of: -

MUKESH KUMAR …………. PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE AND ORS ……… RESPONDENTS

Objections filed on behalf of the Respondents no.2 and 3 to the petition

Under Section 276 of the Indian Succession act for grant of probate with

respect to the will dated 10.03.2021 executed by late Sh. Ved Prakash.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION.

1. That the above said petition is forged and fabricated and is liable to be

dismissed. The true facts are that late Sh. Ved Prakash lived with his

daughter in law Smt. Gyan Kaur W/o Late Umesh Kumar and

granddaughter Ms. Khushi D/O late Umesh Kumar in his life time at

H.No.58, new MS Block Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi 110059.

2. That the answering respondent no. 2 Smt. Gyan Kaur W/o Late Umesh

Kumar cared and supported her father-in-law Sh. Ved Prakash during his

life time and had a very good relation and understanding with him. Late

Sh. Ved Prakash. during his life time never intended to bequeath the

property in any manner and he always wanted to give the property to his

widow daughter in law and his granddaughter i.e. respondent no 2 and

3.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

1. That the petitioner has not come with clean hands before this Hon'ble

Court as he has suppressed the true facts of the case and as such he is

guilty suppression, suggestion and falsification, therefore the petition of

the petitioner under reply is not maintainable.

2. That this petition is not maintainable as at the time of the execution of

the will in question the executants was living with the respondent no 2

and 3 happily. So, there is no question to execute the said will.

3. That this petition is not maintainable the properties which are

mentioned in the will had not been partitioned till today.

4. That this petition is not maintainable as the petitioner had not filed the

declaration of the witnesses before this Hon’ble court.

5. That this petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not filed

proper court fee as per law in his petition.

6. That it is clear that as a part of criminal conspiracy the petitioner

forged the signatures of the Ved Prakash on will dated 10.03.2021 and

created a false document. The father-in-law of the respondent no 2 never

executed will dated 10.03.2021. Hence, there is no question to probate

the said will.

7. That from the facts narrated herein before it would be clear that in

furtherance of the criminal conspiracy the petitioner and his family

members and the petitioner and his family members have committed

offences punishable under sections 442, 445, 446, 448, 455, 457, 458,

461, 462, 464, 465, 467, 471, 209, 380, 34 /120-B Indian Penal Code.

8. That it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court

proceeds against the petitioner and witnesses to the forged will dated

10.03.2021 for creating false documents and using them in judicial

proceeding.

9. That the alleged will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, so the

provisions made by it cannot be treated as last testamentary deposition

of the Testator.

10. That the signature of the Testator on the alleged will is shaky,

doubtful, inconsistent and not appears to be his usual signature, hence

the probate cannot be granted in favor of petitioner in the present case.

REPLY ON MERITS: -

1. That the contents of para no.1 and para no.2 needs no comments.
2. That the contents of para no.3 and 4 is asserted.

3. That the contents of para no.5 is wrong and denied because no will

was duly executed by the father of petitioner i.e. Ved Prakash and the will

which is registered is forged and fabricated.

4. That the contents of Para No.6 of the petition are wrong and denied.

It is submitted that the alleged will is forged and fabricated documents

which prepared by the petitioner and respondent No.4 and 5 with the

collusion to grab the share of the answering respondent/objector. The

contents of preliminary objections may be read part and parcel of para

under reply as same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

5. That the contents of Para No.7 of the petition are wrong and denied.

It is denied that the will was duly executed.

6. That the contents of Para No.8 are wrong and denied late shri Umesh

Kumar and his family had a cordial relation with late Sh Ved Prakash and

the said property was purchased by the contribution of shri Umesh

Kumar.

7. That the contents of para no 9 is wrong and denied the said complaint

was false and frivolous and it was pending at the time of death of shri Ved

Prakash.

8. That the contents of para no. 10 are wrong and denied. it is submitted

that the alleged will is forged and fabricated documents which prepared

by the petitioner
and respondent No.4 and 5 with the collusion to grab the share of the

answering respondent/objector.

9. That the Contents of para no. 11 is matter of record hence needs no

reply.

10. That the contents of para no 12 needs no comment.

11. That the contents of para no. 13 are asserted to the fact that there is

no other class -1 legal heirs of the deceased except those mentioned in the

petition. Whereas it is denied that the petitioner will be only beneficiary

of the said property. It is alleged that the will is forged and fabricated

documents which prepared by the petitioner and respondent No.4 and 5

with the collusion to grab the share of the answering respondent/objector

12. The contents of para no. 14 are asserted.

13. That the contents of para no. 15 are wrong petitioner has not paid the

appropriate court fee.

14. That the contents of para no. 16 are denied no will was duly executed

by the deceased i.e. Shri Ved Prakash.

15. In reply to prayer clause it is submitted that the petitioner has

miserably failed to make out any case in his favor for the grant of relief

prayed for and as such the present probate petition under reply is liable

to be dismissed with exemplary cost being the prayer clause of the

petition is wrong, highly misconceived, sans substance.

Prayer:

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may

kindly be pleased to dismissed the present probate petition with heavy

cost in the interest of justice.

It is prayed accordingly.

Respondent no. 2 and 3.

VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this October 2023 that the contents of the

preliminary objections paras 1. to 10 and 1 & 15 of the reply on merits are

correct on the legal information received and believe to be true and

contents of paras 1 to 5 of reply on merits are true and correct to the best

of my knowledge. Last para is prayer to this Hon'ble Court.

Respondent. No. 2 and 3

Place: Delhi Through:

Navneet (Advocate)

Chamber no. 311, Western Wing,

Tis Hazari Courts,

New Delhi-110056

Mobile No-9711933400