Delhi District Court
State vs Shamsheer Ali on 24 February, 2026
Page 1 of 8
IN THE COURT OF ASHISH KUMAR MEENA
JMFC-01, SAKET COURT (SOUTH) NEW DELHI.
FIR NO.: 81/2021
U/S: 188/448 IPC & 461 DMC ACT
PS: Malviya Nagar
STATE
VS.
SHAMSHEER ALI, S/o SH. SIDAKAT ALI,
R/O H. NO. J-3A/24, KHIRKI EXTN.
MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI. ...... ACCUSED
1. Sr. No. of the case : 2399/2022
2. The date of offence : 15.11.2018
3. The name of the complainant : DC, MCD.
4. The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
5. The date of order : 24.02.2026
6. The final order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. As per the complainant of concerned Deputy Commissioner, South Zone, MCD, Delhi ("DC, MCD"), Shamsheer Ali ("Accused") is facing trial for the allegations that on 15.11.2018, at time unknown, at the property bearing no.B-28, Panchsheel Vihar, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS-Malviya Nagar, the accused, being the owner/builder of the aforesaid property, has tampered/break open the seal which was affixed on the aforesaid property by officials of MCD, South Zone on 15.11.2018. Furthermore, the accused Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No:81/2021 PS:Malviya Nagar State Vs. Shamsheer Ali MEENA Date:
2026.02.24 16:31:06 +0530 Page 2 of 8 has trespassed and raised construction on the said property, and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 188/448 IPC r/w 461 of DMC Act, 1957.
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 188/448 IPC r/w 461 DMC Act to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined three witnesses. PW-1 Sh. Pawan Kumar (the then JE) has deposed that on 23.09.2020, during on routine inspection, he reached property No. B-28, Panchsheel Vihar, New Delhi, where he found that the seal earlier affixed by MCD officials on 15.11.2018 at the said property had been tampered with. He then returned to the office and informed the matter to his superior officer. Consequently, an FIR was registered against the said property on the complaint of the Deputy Commissioner, South Zone, MCD. The said complaint dated 08.10.2020 is Ex.PW1/C. The Investigating Officer issued a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the witness to join the investigation vide Ex.PW1/A. He accompanied the IO to the property and pointed out the same. The IO prepared the site plan at his instance vide Ex.PW1/B. The witness was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
4. PW-2 IO/ASI Sunil Kumar (1st IO of this case) has deposed that on 12.10.2020, a complaint was received at PS- Malviya Nagar, which had been sent by the MCD under Sections 448/188 IPC read with Section 461 of the DMC Act, and the Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.02.24
16:31:11
FIR No:81/2021 PS:Malviya Nagar State Vs. Shamsheer Ali +0530
Page 3 of 8
same was marked to him by the SHO. Meanwhile, another complaint received through the DCP was also marked to him on 26.10.2020. He endorsed the same and got the FIR registered on 23.01.2021 vide Ex.PW2/A. During investigation, on 18.02.2021, he issued a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to the Executive Engineer, Building-II, South Zone, MCD, for providing relevant documents pertaining to the case vide Ex.PW2/B. He received certified copies of the relevant documents from the MCD office. Thereafter, he issued a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to Junior Engineer Shri Pawan Kumar to join the investigation vide Ex.PW1/A. Subsequently, he met Junior Engineer Shri Pawan Kumar, and together they visited the subject property, i.e., B-28, Panchsheel Vihar, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. The JE pointed out the property in question and informed him that it was the same property where the seal affixed by MCD had been found tampered. At the instance of the JE, he prepared the site plan of the property vide Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the JE under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the meantime, he was transferred from PS Malviya Nagar, and he handed over the case file to the MHC(R). The witness was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
5. PW-3 SI Tahir Hussain (2nd IO of this case) has deposed that on 01.06.2021, further investigation of the present case was marked to him, and he received the case file from the MHC(R). He issued a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the owner of the subject property, namely Shamsheer Ali vide Ex.PW3/A. On 15.08.2021, the owner of the subject property appeared at the police station. He was served with a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. vide Ex.PW3/B. The accused joined the investigation of Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
FIR No:81/2021 PS:Malviya Nagar State Vs. Shamsheer Ali MEENA 2026.02.24 16:31:14 +0530 Page 4 of 8 the case. He was interrogated, and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW3/C. The accused produced his property documents, which were taken into police custody vide Ex.PW3/D. The accused produced the following documents:
GPA vide Mark-A (colly), Gift Deed vide Mark-B (colly), GPA dated 07.10.2015 vide Mark-C (colly), Will dated 07.10.2015 vide Mark-D (colly), GPA dated 10.11.1991 vide Mark-E (colly), and Agreement to Sell dated 18.05.2018 vide Mark-F (colly). Upon perusal of these property documents, he found that the number of the subject property was B-29, Panchsheel Vihar, whereas it had been booked by the MCD as property No. B-28, Panchsheel Vihar. He bound down the accused vide Ex.PW3/E. Thereafter, he, alongwith the accused visited the spot. The accused pointed out the property and informed him that no permission had been obtained from the MCD. At the instance of the accused, he prepared the pointing-out memo vide Ex.PW3/F. Subsequently, he wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, South Zone, seeking permission under Section 195 Cr.P.C. and Section 467 of the DMC Act vide Ex.PW3/G. Upon receiving permission from the Deputy Commissioner, South Zone, he completed the investigation, prepared the charge-sheet, and submitted the same before the concerned Court. The witness was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
6. Vide separate statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C., the accused has admitted the present FIR, Certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act supporting the FIR, Complaint u/s 466A DMC Act and Complaint u/s 467 DMC Act. In view of the same, remaining witnesses were dropped from the list of witnesses. Accordingly, prosecution evidence concluded. Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No:81/2021 PS:Malviya Nagar State Vs. Shamsheer Ali Date:
MEENA 2026.02.24
16:31:18
+0530
Page 5 of 8
7. 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 he 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.
8. Final arguments heard. Case file perused.
9. Short point for determination before this court is as under:-
''Whether on 15.11.2018, at time unknown, at the property bearing no.B-28, Panchsheel Vihar, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS-Malviya Nagar, the accused, being the owner/builder of the aforesaid property, has tampered/break open the seal which was affixed on the aforesaid property by officials of MCD, South Zone on 15.11.2018. Furthermore, the accused has trespassed and raised construction on the said property, and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 188/448 IPC r/w 461 of DMC Act, 1957."
10. 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 Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No:81/2021 PS:Malviya Nagar State Vs. Shamsheer Ali KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.02.24
16:31:21
+0530
Page 6 of 8
evidence produced by the prosecution witnesses.
11. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused is innocent and falsely implicated in the present matter.
Further, it is submitted that the prosecution has no evidence against the accused, hence, he liable to be get acquitted from all charges.
12. In the present case accused is charged under Section 188/448 IPC r/w 461 DMC Act. Thus, the prosecution is required to prove that the concerned official of MCD has sealed the property in question on 15.11.2018 and the same was found to be broken on 23.09.2020. The prosecution is also required to prove that the said seal was tampered by the accused. In this regard, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Pawan Kumar, who has deposed that during inspection on 23.09.2020 the seal affixed by MCD was found to be tampered. Thus, it is clear that the said seal was not affixed by him. PW-1 Pawan Kumar has only deposed that factum of his inspection conducted on 23.09.2020 and the fact that he found that the alleged seal found to be broken. Therefore, it was imperative for the prosecution to prove the factum of sealing proceedings conducted on 15.11.2018. However, it is to be noted that both the IOs and prosecution has not examined the concerned official who affixed the seal/conducted the sealing proceeding. It is also to be noted that the document pertaining to sealing proceeding are not placed on record. Furthermore, PW-2 IO/ASI Sunil Kumar and PW-3 SI Tahir Hussain have deposed that he met with Inspecting Officer JE Pawan Kumar and went alongwith him to the property. Thereafter, IO/SI Tahir Hussain inquired from the accused about the ownership of the property. It Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No:81/2021 PS:Malviya Nagar State Vs. Shamsheer Ali MEENA Date:
2026.02.24 16:31:25 +0530 Page 7 of 8 is to be noted that despite knowing the fact that JE Pawan Kumar only inspected the property, both the IOs did not conduct any investigation or try to made witness the official who sealed the property in question. Moreover, no photographs or any other documentary evidence have been placed to prove the factum of affixation of seal. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of sealing proceeding initiated on 15.11.2018. The said lapse in investigation proves to be fatal to the case of prosecution.
13. In view of this Court, the prosecution was required to prove that the property was sealed by MCD and the same was consequently tampered by the accused, thus, accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 188/448 IPC r/w 461 DMC Act. Notably, the IO and concerned official of MCD have not placed most relevant document before this court to prove that the property was actually sealed on 15.11.2018. The said lapse in investigation proves to be fatal to the case of prosecution.
14. 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. The prosecution was required to prove that the accused, being owner/builder/occupier, has tampered with the seal affixed on 15.11.2018. However, there is no evidence on record which proves that the seal was affixed by concerned official of MCD.
15. 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 for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No:81/2021 PS:Malviya Nagar State Vs. Shamsheer Ali MEENA Date:
2026.02.24 16:31:28 +0530 Page 8 of 8 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.
16. Hence, accused Sh. Shamsheer Ali, S/o Sh. Sidakat Ali stands acquitted of the offence under Section 188/488 of Indian Penal Code r/w Section 461 of The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, he has been charged with. Ordered accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.02.2026. IT IS CERTIFIED THAT THE PRESENT JUDGMENT RUNS INTO EIGHT PAGES AND EACH PAGE BEARS SIGNATURE OF THE UNDERSIGNED. Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2026.02.24 16:31:32 +0530 (ASHISH KUMAR MEENA) JMFC-01/SAKET COURT(SOUTH), NEW DELHI/24.02.2026 FIR No:81/2021 PS:Malviya Nagar State Vs. Shamsheer Ali