Delhi District Court
State vs Md Idresh on 29 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. NUPUR GUPTA :
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Mohd. Idres
FIR NO. 230/2023
PS (PUL PRAHLAD PUR)
u/s 3 DPDP ACT
JUDGMENT :-
Srl. No. of the case & Date of Cr CASES 5345/2024 institution 18.05.2024.
Date of commission of offence 04.08.2023.
Name of the complainant HC VIRENDER Name of the accused Mohd. IDRES Nature of offence complained of U/S. 3 DPDP Act Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty Date of reserving order Not reserved. Final Order Acquitted u/s. 3 DPDP Act Date of order 29.10.2025.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:-
1. In the present case, accused is facing trial for offence punishable under Section 3 DPDP Act on the allegations that on 04.08.2023, at about 07:30 P.M., infront M.B. Road, Pul Prahlad Pur, New Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of PS Pul Prahlad Pur, one hoarding board was found affixed on an electricity pole containing the words "Idrees e-Rikshaw Service Available Center Shop No.1, Pul Prahlad Pur, M.B. Road, New Delhi-110044" was found affixed. It is alleged that the accused had affixed the said board containing the above said words on public Digitally signed by NUPUR property in public view. NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.29 16:55:52
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on +0530 FIR No. 230/2023 State Vs. Md. Idres Page No. 1/5 18.05.2024 and cognizance was taken on the same date. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to accused on 28.10.2024 and notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for offence punishable U/s. 3 DPDP Act was given to accused on the same date, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Before recording of prosecution evidence, accused admitted copy of FIR without admitting contents thereof. To prove its case, prosecution has examined two witnesses.
4. PW1 HC Virender, who is complainant as well as Investigating Officer in the present matter, on 04.08.2023, he was posted as HC at PS Pul Prahlad Pur. On that day, at around 07:30 PM he along with HC Suresh were on patrolling duty and when they reached at M. B. Road, Police Station, Pul Prahlad Pur, New Delhi, they noticed one board hanging on an electricity pole containing the words "Idrees e-Rikshaw Service Available Center Shop No.1, Pul Prahlad Pur, M.B. Road, New Delhi-110044"'. He had taken the photographs of the said board and after that the board was removed from the pole. He then seized it vide seizure memo as Ex.PW1/1. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka Ex.PW1/2 and handed over to HC Suresh for registration of FIR. After the registration of FIR, HC Suresh returned back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR, original rukka and certificate u/s 65B of IEA to him as the investigation of the case was marked to him. He had prepared site plan Ex.PW1/3. Thereafter, they returned to the PS along with case property and he deposited the case property in the Malkhana and recorded the statement of HC Suresh u/s 161 Cr.PC and placed the same on record. During further course of investigation, on 05.08.2023, he contacted the accused on the mobile number which was mentioned on the board and it was responded by the accused. He asked the Digitally accused to come to the PS, and subsequently accused came at the PS and met signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.29 him. He informed the accused about the commission of the offence punishable 16:56:05 +0530 u/s 3 DPDP Act. He inquired from the accused regarding the affixation of the FIR No. 230/2023 State Vs. Md. Idres Page No. 2/5 said board at the pole. However, accused could not give any satisfactory answer to the said question. He served the notice of 41A Cr.PC as Ex. PW1/4 upon the accused. After due interrogation he released the accused on Pabandinama Ex. PW1/5 is on record. He has correctly identified the accused and photograph of the case property which is on judicial record as Ex. P-1. He had completed the investigation and prepared the charge-sheet and submitted before the Court. He was then duly cross-examined and discharged.
5. PW2 HC Suresh, he deposed that on 04.08.2023, he was posted as Head Constable at PS Pul Prahlad Pur. He was on patrolling duty along with HC Virender at about 07:30 P.M., they reached infront of MB Road, Police Station, Pul Prahlad Pur, New Delhi and noticed one board hanging on the electricity pole containing the words " Idres e-Rikshaw Service Center, Shop No. 1, Pul Prahlad Pur, New Delhi." HC Virender then took the photographs of the same and then removed the same from the pole. HC Virender then seized it vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/1. Thereafter, HC Virender prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him to get the FIR registered at the PS. He then left the spot and reached at PS Pul Prahlad Pur and got the present FIR registered through the then DO. He then returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR, certificate 65B of IEA and original rukka to HC Virender as the investigation of the case was marked to him. During the course of investigation, IO/HC Virender prepared the site plan at the spot vide memo Ex.PW1/3. Thereafter, they returned to the PS along with case property and IO deposited the case property in the Malkhana and recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC and placed the same on record. He has correctly identified the photograph of the case property which is on judicial record as Digitally signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
Ex. P-1. He was then duly cross-examined and discharged. 2025.10.29 16:56:29 +0530
6. No other PW was examined by prosecution and PE was closed on 24.09.2025.
FIR No. 230/2023 State Vs. Md. Idres Page No. 3/57. Statement of accused was recorded U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. on 29.10.2025, wherein he denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded innocence and chose to lead any defence evidence. However, subsequently, vide separate statement of the accused, he chose not to lead DE and opportunity to lead the same was closed.
8. Final arguments were advanced at length by both the parties.
9. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.
10. This being a criminal case, the burden of proving guilt of accused lies upon the prosecution for which the standard required is beyond reasonable doubt. The ingredients required to prove offence punishable U/s. 3 DPDP Act in this case are :
a. That the accused has defaced any public property by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material;
b. That the public property is situated in public view;
c. That writing or marking on public property in public view was not for indicating the name and address of the owner /occupier of the said property;
d. or that the defacement of public property had been done for benefit of the accused with his knowledge or consent.
11. Now let us examine if the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the present accused for offence punishable under Section 3 DPDP Act.
12. The material witness in the present case is complainant/IO himself. Nowhere in the entire charge sheet or in his testimony, Digitally signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA complainant/IO has alleged that any person had actually seen the accused GUPTA Date:
2025.10.29 16:56:46 +0530 putting up/affixing the board at the spot on above mentioned date, time and FIR No. 230/2023 State Vs. Md. Idres Page No. 4/5 place. Nothing has been produced before court to state that the said board was installed/affixed by the accused himself or at his instance or for his benefit. Complainant/IO has not pointed out specifically anywhere in the entire charge sheet as to how and in what manner he conducted investigation to arrive at the conclusion that it was the accused who had installed/affixed board at the spot on above mentioned date, time and place. There is nothing available on record to suggest that any public person had informed complainant/IO of accused indulging in illegal activities as per Section 3 DPDP Act. Infact, no public person has been named as a witness in the present matter. Furthermore, in cross-examination, complainant/IO has admitted that he did not see accused or any other person acting at the behest of accused, installing/affixing the said board. Furthermore, the entire charge-sheet is silent if the said board was installed/affixed for the benefit of accused in any manner. The prosecution has not pleaded a case pointing out any benefit accrued to accused as per Section 3(2) DPDP Act.
13. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that there is not even an iota of evidence against accused to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the board had been installed/affixed by accused or at behest of accused and therefore, no offence punishable under Section 3 DPDP Act is made out against accused. Accordingly, accused Mohd. Idres is acquitted for offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act.
(Typed directly on Court computer and announced in the open Court on 29.10.2025).
Digitally signed by NUPURNUPUR GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.10.29 16:57:02 +0530 (Dr. Nupur Gupta) Chief Judicial Magistrate, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No. 230/2023 State Vs. Md. Idres Page No. 5/5