Affixing Banners Governed by Section 3(1) of DPDP Act Does Not Constitute Defacement by Writing or Marking

In brief

The question

1. Whether the act of affixing a banner on a government pole constitutes "defacement" as defined under Section 3(1) of the DPDP Act

The court held

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

It also directed

The Court held that continuing the prosecution would be an "exercise in futile"

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 29/2025 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom

01Facts

On January 19, 2025, police officials on patrol at PS Inderpuri observed a promotional banner featuring political leaders affixed to a Government Electricity Pole

pp. 1-2

Based on information from a secret informer, the petitioner was identified as the person responsible for printing and affixing the banners

p. 2

An FIR (No. 29/2025) was registered under Section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property (DPDP) Act, 2007.

pp. 1-3

Following 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

pp. 1-3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the act of affixing a banner on a government pole constitutes "defacement" as defined under Section 3(1) of the DPDP Act

p. 3

03Law 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"

p. 3

T.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

pp. 2-3

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

West Bengal Prevention Of Defacement Of Property Act, 1976 Section 3

04Reasoning

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

p. 3

In the present case, the prosecution's allegations and the charge-sheet were limited to the "factum that a banner was affixed to a pole"

p. 3

The 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

p. 3

Applying 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

p. 3

05Holding

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

p. 3

The Court held that continuing the prosecution would be an "exercise in futile"

p. 3

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 29/2025 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom

p. 4

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF