Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Delhi · body

2026 DAILYLAW 13980 (DEL)

SATISH CHANDER v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

CRL.M.C./2548/2026 · 2026-07-27

Madhu Jain

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2548/2026 & CRL.M.A. 10353/2026 SATISH CHANDER .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jai Prakash Sharma, Mr. Devesh Chaudhry, Mr. Umesh Attrey. Mr. Vikas Gautam and Ms. Divyanjali Chaturvedi, Advs. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for State. pSI Krishan Varma, PS Inder Puri, Delhi. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 27.07.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS') seeking quashing of FIR No. 44/2025 dated 19.01.2025, registered under Section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'DPDP Act') at Police Station Inderpuri, Delhi, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 3. Succinctly put, as per prosecution, on 19.01.2025 at about 09:25 PM, police officials, whilst on patrolling duty, noticed a banner affixed on a Government Electricity Pole containing photographs of several political This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 10:52:01 leaders and a candidate along with promotional content, pursuant to which the present FIR came to be registered and the said banner was photographed, removed and taken into police possession. 4. During the course of investigation and local enquiry conducted, a secret informer revealed that the petitioner was responsible for affixing the banner, the Investigating Officer (IO) reached his residence and found him. Upon enquiry, he admitted his involvement and disclosed that he had got the banners printed and affixed at various places. Thus, upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court, where the proceedings are pending adjudication. 5. Mr. J.R. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner as the charge-sheet does not disclose the identity of the person who had actually affixed the banner on the Government Pole. Also, there is no material on record to show that the petitioner had authorized any person to affix the said banner or that the same was within his knowledge. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the essential ingredients of Section 3 of the DPDP Act are not attracted, inasmuch as there is no allegation of defacement by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material, as contemplated under the statute. Placing reliance upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in T.S. Marwah & Ors. v. State, CRL.M.C. 1920/2008, decided on 17.09.2008, it is submitted that mere affixation of a banner, poster or sticker does not amount to defacement within the meaning of Section 3 of the DPDP Act and, therefore, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed. 7. Per contra, Ms. Richa Dhawan, learned APP for the State, submits that This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 10:52:01 during the course of investigation the petitioner was identified as the person responsible for affixing the banner and had admitted his involvement. She further submits that the investigation stands concluded, the charge-sheet has already been filed and the matter is presently pending before the learned Trial Court. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State and has perused the material placed on record, including the Status Report. 9. Since this Court is called upon to adjudge as to whether affixation of a banner falls within the ambit of Section 3 of the DPDP Act, the relevant extract thereof is as under:- “3. Penalty for defacement of property (1) Whoever defaces any property in public view by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material except for the purpose of indicating the name and address of the owner or occupier of such property, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both. ” (Emphasis Supplied) 10. As evident therefrom, the liability only arises whence there is a defacement of property in public view through ‘ … … writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint, or similar material… … ’, which, herein as per the charge- sheet itself is missing. In fact, the allegations pertain only to the factum that a banner was affixed to a pole by the petitioner herein. In such a scenario, as also based on the contents of the FIR and the charge-sheet, the statutory requirement contemplated under Section 3(1) of the DPDP Act are not satisfied. Consequently, the present FIR cannot sustain prosecution and the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 10:52:01 continuation thereof will be an exercise in futile. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the essential ingredients of Section 3 of the DPDP Act are not made out. Consequently, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 12. Accordingly, FIR No. 44/2025 dated 19.01.2025, registered under Section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 at Police Station Inderpuri, Delhi, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 13. In light of the above, the present petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the above. 14. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J JULY 27, 2026/JYH/P This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 10:52:01