Delhi District Court
State vs Smt Meena on 13 February, 2026
Page 1 of 11
IN THE COURT OF ASHISH KUMAR MEENA
JMFC-01, SAKET COURT (SOUTH) NEW DELHI.
FIR NO.: 67/2018
U/S: 332/461 DMC ACT
PS: Fatehpur Beri
STATE
VS.
SMT MEENA, W/o NEPAL SINGH,
R/O H. NO. 428, MAIN ROAD NEAR ARYA SAMAJ
MANDIR, CHHATTARUR, NEW DELHI. ...... ACCUSED
1. Sr. No. of the case : 1904/2023
2. The date of offence : 08.11.2017
3. The name of the complainant : DC, MCD.
4. The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
5. The date of order : 13.02.2026
6. The final order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, Meena ("Accused") is facing trial on the allegations that on 08.11.2017 at property bearing no. 428 (RHS), Khasra No.260/3, Near Arya Samaj Mandir, Chhatarpur Village, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS-Fatehpur Beri, the accused being occupier/owner of the said property was found carrying out unauthorized construction in the shape of Ground Floor and First Floor without permission/sanction from the concerned authority of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Thus, the accused was booked under the Section 332 r/w 461 of Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 67/2018 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Smt Meena MEENA Date:
2026.02.13 15:37:14 +0530 Page 2 of 11 The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (DMC Act).
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO. Consequently, accused was summoned after taking cognizance of offence. The accused was charged u/s 332 r/w 461 DMC Act and accordingly, the charge was framed against the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined three witnesses. PW-1 Sh. Vishwendra (the then DC, South Zone, MCD/Complainant) has deposed that on 30.11.2017, a report moved by Sh. Dhirendra Kumar (the then JE) regarding an unauthorized construction at property no. 428 (RHS), O/B, Smt. Meena Devi, Khasra No. 260/3, near Arya Samaj Mandir, Village Chhatarpur, New Delhi. Unauthorized construction was being carried out in the shape of ground floor and first floor. After perusal of office record and report of his sub-ordinate officials, he made complaint u/s 332/461 r/w Section 466A DMC Act to SHO, PS- Mehrauli vide Ex.PW1/A. On 09.04.2018, he gave permission u/s 467 of DMC Act for prosecution against the accused Smt. Meena, W/o Late Sh. Nepal Singh, R/o 428, Khasra No. 260/3, near Arya Samaj Mandir, Village Chhatarpur, New Delhi for unauthorized construction at property no. R/o 428 (RHS), Khasra No. 260/3, near Arya Samaj Mandir, Village Chhatarpur, New Delhi vide Ex.PW1/B. The witness has been duly cross-examined on behalf of the accused.
4. PW-2 Sh. Dhirendra Kumar (the then JE) has deposed that on 08.11.2017, during routine inspection, he reached at property H. No. 428 (RHS), Khasra No. 260/3, Near Arya Samaj Mandir, Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 67/2018 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Smt Meena MEENA Date:
2026.02.13 15:37:19 +0530 Page 3 of 11 Chhatarpur Village, New Delhi and noticed an unauthorized construction on the above-mentioned property in the shape of ground floor and first floor. He inquired from the locality and a complaint was received w.r.t. court case by which he got to know the name of owner/builder of the said property was Smt. Meena Devi. Upon reaching office, he prepared FIR and put it up before the concerned AE vide Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter, a show cause notice u/s 344(1) and 343 of DMC Act was issued against the owner/builder Smt. Meena Devi on 08.11.2017 vide Ex.PW2/B. He went to the property to serve the notice on 09.11.2017, but some person who was there refused to take the notice. Thereafter, the said notice was served by way of pasting on 10.11.2017. He took photographs of the pasted notice at the above-mentioned property vide Ex.PW2/C. As no reply of the above-said show cause notice received, accordingly he reported the matter to concerned AE. He requested on 16.11.2017 to concerned AE to issue demolition notice/order u/s 343 DMC Act to the owner/builder of the above-mentioned property vide Ex.PW2/D. Accordingly, on 16.11.2017, second notice/demolition order has been issued to owner/builder of the above-mentioned property vide Ex.PW2/E. He again went to the above-mentioned property to serve the notice, but persons available at the site refused to receive the said notice. Accordingly, it was served by way of pasting on 17.11.2017. He took photographs of the pasted notice at the above-mentioned property vide Ex.PW2/F. He went to the site to ascertain the compliance of second notice on 24.11.2017, but the owner/builder namely Smt. Meena Devi had not complied with the direction of second notice. Accordingly, by following due process of law demolition order was passed on 24.11.2017 and the UC file of the above-said property has been handed over Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 67/2018 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Smt Meena MEENA Date:
2026.02.13 15:37:24 +0530 Page 4 of 11 to office incharge for further necessary action as per policy of priority. He also initiated the prosecution file on 22.11.2017 and upon his complaint, a complaint u/s 332/461 DMC Act r/w Section 466A was filed by the concerned DC to SHO, PS- Mehrauli. Thereafter, an FIR was got registered. IO called him and he alongwith IO went to above-mentioned site. He told to IO about the above-said property. IO had prepared the site plan at his instance vide Ex.PW2/G. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. The witness has been duly cross-examined on behalf of the accused.
5. PW-3 ASI Baldev Raj (IO of this case) has deposed that on 01.02.2018, a complaint was received by MCD u/s 332/461 DMC Act and same was marked to him by the SHO. He endorsed the same and got the FIR registered on 01.02.2018 vide Ex.PW3/A. During investigation, he visited personally and gave notice to MCD office, for providing relevant documents pertaining to this case. He received all the relevant documents regarding this case. He called JE Sh. Dhirender Kumar to join the investigation. Thereafter, he met with JE on 07.02.2018 at property i.e. H. No.428 (RHS), Khasra No.260/3, Near Arya Samaj Mandir, Chhatarpur Village, New Delhi and JE pointed out towards the property in question and told him that this is the property where unauthorized construction has taken place. At the instance of JE, he prepared the site plan of the property vide Ex.PW2/G. Thereafter, he recorded statement of JE u/s 161 Cr.P.C. During investigation, he inquired from locality and got to know that person namely Meena was the owner of the property in question. However, owner was not present at the property. On his third visit, he met the accused Meena. He interrogated her and Digitally signed ASHISH by ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 67/2018 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Smt Meena KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.02.13 15:37:28 +0530 Page 5 of 11 gave notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.PW3/B for production of property document. At the instance of accused, he prepared pointing out memo vide Ex.PW3/C. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused vide Ex.PW3/D. Thereafter, accused handed over him property document which was seized vide Ex.PW3/E. He gave notice u/s 41A Cr.P.C. vide Ex.PW3/F. He bound down the accused. He wrote letter to DC, South Zone, SDMC for seeking permission u/s 467 DMC Act. Thereafter, he was transferred from PS-Mehrauli. Hence, he handed over the case diary to the MHC(R). The witness has been duly cross-examined on behalf of the accused.
6. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 281 Cr.P.C r/w 313 Cr.P.C, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused, to which the accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has stated that he is innocent and all the exhibits are false and manipulated. Further, the accused wished not to lead defence evidence.
7. Final arguments heard. Case file perused.
8. Short point for determination before this court is as under:-
''Whether on 08.11.2017 at property bearing no. 428 (RHS), Khasra No.260/3, Near Arya Samaj Mandir, Chhatarpur Village, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS-Fatehpur Beri, the accused being occupier/owner of the said property was found carrying out unauthorized construction in the shape Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 67/2018 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Smt Meena MEENA Date:
2026.02.13 15:37:32 +0530 Page 6 of 11 of Ground Floor and First Floor without permission/sanction from the concerned authority of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Thus, the accused was booked under the Section 332 r/w 461 of The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957."
9. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that the ocular and the documentary evidence on record has proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. APP for the state submitted that there is sufficient material available on record to convict the accused and hence prayed for conviction of accused as per the evidence produced by the prosecution witnesses.
10. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused is innocent and falsely implicated in the present matter.
Ld. Counsel submitted that the Prosecution has failed to prove that accused is the owner/occupier or builder of the property in question. Further, it is submitted that the prosecution has no evidence against the accused, hence, she is liable to be get acquitted from all charges.
11. In the present case accused is charged under Section 332 r/w 461 DMC Act. Before appreciating the evidence in hand, it is important to go through the relevant provision of the Act:
332. Prohibition of building without sanction: - No person shall erect or commence to erect any building or execute any of the works specified in section 334 except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner, not otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and of the bye-laws Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 67/2018 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Smt Meena MEENA Date:
2026.02.13 15:37:37 +0530 Page 7 of 11 made under this Act in relation to the erection of buildings or execution of works
461. Punishment for certain offences: (1) Whoever--
(a) contravenes any provision of any of the sections, sub-sections, clauses, provisos or other provisions of this Act mentioned in the first column of the Table in the Twelfth Schedule; or
(b) fails to comply with any order or direction lawfully given to him or any requisition lawfully made upon him under any of the said sections, sub-sections, clauses, provisos or other provisions, shall be punishable--
(i) with fine which may extend to the amount, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to the period, specified in that behalf in the third column of the said Table or with both; and
(ii) in the case of a continuing contravention or failure, with an additional fine which may extend to the amount specified in the fourth column of that Table for every day during which such contravention or failure continues after conviction for the first such contravention or failure.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), whoever contravenes the provisions of subsection (1) of section 317 or sub-section (1) of section 320 or sub-section (1) of section 321 or subsection (1) of Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
FIR No: 67/2018 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Smt Meena 2026.02.13 15:37:40 +0530 Page 8 of 11 section 325 or section 339, in relation to any street which is a public street, shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both.
12. Section 332 lays down that no person shall erect or commence to erect any building except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner, or otherwise than in accordance with provisions of Chapter XVI and of the bye-law make under the Act in relation to the erection of buildings. The MCD has been empowered to discourage, prevent and stop illegal and unauthorized building and construction activities under Sections 343,344,345,345-A,346 and 347 of the Act to demolish and stop the building work, require alteration or work and seal unauthorized construction. In view of the same, the MCD has endowed with ample powers to discourage, prevent and stop illegal and unauthorized construction.
13. Further, it is clear from a plain reading of Section 332 of the Act that in order that a person may be proved guilty of having committed the offence mentioned therein, the prosecution will have to prove that such person either "erected" or "commenced to erect" any building or any works without previous sanction or in a manner not authorized by the Act. Further, what is critical is that the person who is sought to be bound guilty should himself have either erected or commenced to erect the unauthorized construction. The mere presence of a person at the spot may not satisfy this requirement. This Court places its reliance on MCD vs Prakash, 148 (2008) Delhi Law Times 587.
Digitally
signed by
ASHISH
ASHISH KUMAR
KUMAR MEENA
Date:
FIR No: 67/2018 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Smt Meena MEENA 2026.02.13
15:37:44
+0530
Page 9 of 11
14. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, being in the capacity of builder/occupier/owner of the property in question was found carrying out unauthorized construction in the shape of ground floor and first floor without any sanction from concerned Commissioner of MCD.
15. In view of this court and as discussed above, the prosecution is not only required to prove that the accused is the owner/occupier/builder of the property in question, but the accused has erected or commenced to erect the said unauthorized construction.
16. In this regard, the prosecution has examined Inspecting Officer Dhirendra Kumar (PW-2) who has deposed that he booked the property in question for raising unauthorized construction in the shape of ground floor and first floor on 08.11.2017. He prepared FIR vide Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter, he issued two show cause notice vide Ex.PW2/B & Ex.PW2/C. Similarly, the demolition order passed vide Ex.PW2/E. The photographs of the pasted notices is Ex.PW2/F. It is to be noted that the inspecting officer has not placed the photograph of the property in question. Thereafter, on registration of FIR, IO prepared the site plan at the instance of PW-2 Dhirendra Kumar vide Ex.PW2/G. In furtherance of investigation, PW-3 ASI Baldev Raj interrogated the accused and gave notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.PW3/B. Thereafter, the IO seized the property document vide Ex.PW3/E. On completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet. It is further to be noted that the IO has also not placed any photograph of the property in question.
17. As discussed above, the prosecution is majorly relying Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No: 67/2018 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Smt Meena MEENA Date:
2026.02.13 15:37:47 +0530 Page 10 of 11 upon Ex.PW3/E (property document of accused). It is the case of prosecution that Ex.PW3/E clearly proves that the accused is owner of property in question. However, it is to be noted that the accused has not disputed the factum of ownership. It is a well settled law that the documents tendered in evidence must be read as whole. Thus, on careful perusal of Ex.PW3/E, it is revealed that accused Smt. Meena, w/o late Sh. Nepal Singh received the one half share of the property in question consequent to oral partition in the year 1979. She received the built up portion in the possession. The document clearly says that the property was already built up to first floor. It further admits that the accused started repairing the building by replacing wooden doors, changing railings, re-plastering the outer wall and repairing the roof. Thus, the document placed by prosecution clearly suggests that the accused was only conducting the renovation work. However, it is the allegation of MCD that the accused raised fresh construction in the shape of Ground Floor and First Floor. Thus, the prosecution has relied upon the document which is contrary to the case of complainant/prosecution. In order to elaborate or corroborate the said document, IO should have taken the photograph to prove the nature of the construction. However, no such documentary evidence has come on record to prove the case of the prosecution.
18. From the aforesaid discussion, it is very clear that the manner in which the investigation has been conducted on the spot, it makes the prosecution version highly doubtful. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 67/2018 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Smt Meena KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
2026.02.13 15:37:52 +0530 Page 11 of 11 for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
19. Hence, accused Smt. Meena, W/o late Sh. Nepal Singh, stands acquitted of the offence punishable under section 332/461 of The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, she has been charged with. Ordered accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.02.2026. IT IS CERTIFIED THAT THE PRESENT JUDGMENT RUNS INTO ELEVEN PAGES AND EACH PAGE BEARS SIGNATURE OF THE UNDERSIGNED.
Digitally signed by ASHISHASHISH KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2026.02.13 15:37:58 +0530 (ASHISH KUMAR MEENA) JMFC-01/SAKET COURT(SOUTH), NEW DELHI/13.02.2026 FIR No: 67/2018 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Smt Meena