Facts
On January 19, 2025, police officials on patrol at PS Inderpuri observed a promotional banner featuring political leaders affixed to a Government Electricity Pole
Source reference: p. 1-2Based on information from a secret informer, the petitioner was identified as the person responsible for printing and affixing the banners
Source reference: p. 2An FIR (No. 29/2025) was registered under Section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property (DPDP) Act, 2007.
Source reference: p. 1-3Following a police investigation and the filing of a charge-sheet, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings
Source reference: p. 1-3Issues
1. Whether the act of affixing a banner on a government pole constitutes "defacement" as defined under Section 3(1) of the DPDP Act
Source reference: p. 3Law Applied
Section 3(1) of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007, which penalizes the defacement of property in public view by "writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material"
Source reference: p. 3T.S. Marwah & Ors. vs. State (CRL.M.C. 1920/2008), where a Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi High Court held that the mere putting up of a banner does not fall within the ambit of statutory provisions concerning defacement by writing or marking
Source reference: p. 2-3Reasoning
The Court examined the statutory language of Section 3(1) of the DPDP Act and determined that criminal liability arises only when defacement occurs specifically through writing or marking with materials like ink, chalk, or paint
Source reference: p. 3In the present case, the prosecution's allegations and the charge-sheet were limited to the "factum that a banner was affixed to a pole"
Source reference: p. 3The Court reasoned that since there was no evidence or allegation of writing or marking on the pole itself, the essential ingredients of the offense were not satisfied
Source reference: p. 3Applying the logic from T.S. Marwah, the Court concluded that the physical affixation of a banner is distinct from the acts of writing or marking contemplated by the legislature, thus rendering the prosecution unsustainable
Source reference: p. 3Holding
The Court answered the issue in the negative, holding that the affixation of a banner does not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 3(1) of the DPDP Act
The Court held that continuing the prosecution would be an "exercise in futile"
Source reference: p. 3The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 29/2025 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
Satish ChandervsGovt Of Nct Of Delhi
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in