Delhi District Court
State vs Alind Kumar Garg on 23 March, 2026
CNR No.DLND02-009412-2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARAN SALWAN
Judicial Magistrate First Class-01: New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
FIR No. 139/2019
P.S.: South Campus
Under Section: 188/448 IPC and
461 r/w 345-A DMC Act
State Vs. Alind Kumar Garg
S/o Sh. Roshal Lal Garg
R/o B-2, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi.
(a) Sr. No. of the case : 2991/2020
(b) The name of the complainant : Sh. Vishvendra, the then
Deputy Commissioner,
South Zone, SDMC,
New Delhi.
(c) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
(d) Arguments heard on : 07.03.2026
(e) The date of order : 23.03.2026
(f) The final order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Judgment, I shall dispose of the case of the prosecution against the accused person, namely, Alind Kumar Garg for the commission of offences under Section 461 r/w 345-A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'DMC Act') and section 448/188 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').
Digitally signed by CHARAN FIR No.139/2019 PS Vasant Kunj (South) State Vs. Alind Kumar Garg Page No. 1 of 11 CHARAN SALWAN SALWAN Date:
2026.03.23 17:20:50 +0530 CNR No.DLND02-009412-2020
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on or before 02.11.2017 at property bearing H. No. 115, Satya Niketan, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station South Campus, New Delhi, it was found that the accused had initiated and continued the unauthorized construction/work pertaining to above-said property in the shape of basement (rest of building is old and occupied), without obtaining the requisite permission in writing from the concerned Deputy Commissioner. Further, the accused tampered with the seal affixed by the officials of SDMC on the property and committed trespass and raised unauthorized construction work which was booked vide U/C File No. 182/UC/B-I/SZ/17 dated 07.06.2017. It is alleged that the aforementioned unauthorized construction/work has been done at the instance of accused without seeking any permission from concerned Commissioner, South DMC. It alleged that the accused committed an offence punishable U/s. 188/448 of IPC & Section 461 read with Section 345-A of the DMC Act.
3. Upon receiving complaint from the concerned Deputy Commissioner, South Zone, SDMC, New Delhi, the present FIR was registered at P.S. South Campus as the offence was cognizable in nature. After registration of FIR, investigation was launched and upon completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. Consequently, accused was summoned after taking cognizance. Copy of the chargesheet and accompanying documents were provided to the accused. Thereafter, notice was framed upon the accused for the commission of offences u/s 188/448 of IPC and Section 461 read with Section 345-A of the DMC Act to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signed by CHARAN FIR No.139/2019 PS Vasant Kunj (South) State Vs. Alind Kumar Garg Page No. 2 of 11 CHARAN SALWAN SALWAN Date:
2026.03.23 17:20:58 +0530 CNR No.DLND02-009412-2020
4. Thereafter, the matter was listed for Prosecution Evidence wherein the prosecution examined five witnesses:
(a) Sh. D.R. Meena, Assistant Engineer as PW-1;
(b) HC Nisha as PW-2;
(c) Sh. Vishvendra as PW-3;
(d) SI Satish Kumar as PW-4.
(e) Sh. Vikas as PW-5.
5. PW-1 Sh. D.R. Meena, has deposed that in the year 2019, he was posted as Junior Engineer in Building Department-1, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The witness deposed that on 02.11.2017, property No. 115. Satya Niketan had been sealed by him. He deposed that a complaint dated 17.10.2019 was received regarding tampering of seal at the aforesaid property and on 30.10.2019, he went to the site at Satya Niketan and found that the seal was tampered and the premises was again occupied by the accused persons. He deposed that on 31.10.2019, he had given his complaint to the then Deputy Commissioner regarding the present incident which was duly forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner for registration of present FIR.
He deposed that after registration of FIR, he had again sealed the aforesaid property on 15.11.2019. He deposed that for lodging of FIR he had given a letter (Ex. PW-I/A), Photographs of 02.11.2017 and 15.11.2019 (Ex. P-1 collectively). He deposed that he relies upon the certified copies of relevant documents of unauthorized construction file (Ex. P-2 Collectively).
6. In his cross-examination, the witness stated that he cannot tell who was the owner of said building. He stated that he did not have any FIR No.139/2019 PS Vasant Kunj (South) State Vs. Alind Kumar Garg Page No. 3 of 11 Digitally signed by CHARAN CHARAN SALWAN SALWAN Date:
2026.03.23 17:21:08 +0530 CNR No.DLND02-009412-2020 ownership document of the said property. He stated that in the area of Satya Niketan, site plan cannot be passed by MCD. He stated that he cannot tell as to how many buildings are there in the area of Satya Niketan. He admitted that the area is a Slum area and some reporter had first informed regarding tampering of the seal. He stated that he did not have any knowledge that the same reporter had reported with regard to any other building regarding tampering of seal. He stated that only the basement was sealed. The witness denied the suggestion that said seal was not tampered by the accused and that he did not conduct any investigation/inspection in the present case.
7. PW-2 HC Nisha, deposed that on 31.12.2019, she was posted as duty officer in P.S. South Campus. She deposed that on that day, he was deputed as duty officer from 08:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and at 1:05 p.m., ASI Satish had given him one rukka on which he had registered the present FIR (Ex. PW-2/A). The witness was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite giving opportunity.
8. PW-3 Sh. Vishvendra, deposed that on 06.11.2019, he was posted as Deputy Commissioner, South Zone, SDMC, New Delhi and on that day, after looking at the file he had written a letter (Ex.PW3/A) to the DCP South West District to initiate action against the accused for tampering with the seal. The witness was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite giving opportunity.
9. PW-4 SI Satish Kumar (IO of the case), deposed that on dated 12.11.2019, he was posted as ASI in PS South Campus and on that day, Digitally signed by FIR No.139/2019 PS Vasant Kunj (South) State Vs. Alind Kumar Garg Page No. 4 of 11 CHARAN CHARAN SALWAN SALWAN Date:
2026.03.23 17:21:15 +0530 CNR No.DLND02-009412-2020 reader, SHO had given him the present complaint (Ex. PW-3/A) and on the basis of the same, he had prepared the Rukka (Ex. PW-4A) and the present FIR was registered. He deposed that he went to the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex. PW-4/B). He deposed that he had searched for the owner and during enquiry, it was found that a gym in the name of M FIT was running on the property in question. He deposed that hereafter, manager of that Gym was interrogated and his statement was recorded and he disclosed about the owner of the property. He deposed that thereafter, notice u/s 41-A was given to the owner of that property (Ex. PW-4C). The witness relied upon the Pabandinama (Ex.PW-4/D). The witness deposed that a request to provide sanction/complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C was made (Ex. PW-4E), agreement of the property in question was taken (Mark P-2 (colly) and photographs of property in question (Ex. P-1 (colly) were taken. He deposed that thereafter, statement of witnesses were recorded. He deposed that charge sheet was prepared and filed before the Court. The witness has correctly identified the accused who was present in the Court.
10. In his cross-examination, the witness stated that he did not remember the exact time when he visited the spot but it was day time. He stated that he had not taken any proof which proves that Mustakim was the manager of that M FIT GYM. The witness could not tell whether any electricity connection was installed in that property. The witness voluntarily stated that Gym was running and light was there. He admitted that he had not seized the broken seals in the present case. The witness voluntarily stated that no seal was found on the spot. He stated that he had not recorded the statement of any neighbors or independent persons.
Digitally signed by CHARAN FIR No.139/2019 PS Vasant Kunj (South) State Vs. Alind Kumar Garg Page No. CHARAN 5 of 11 SALWAN SALWAN Date:
2026.03.23 17:21:20 +0530 CNR No.DLND02-009412-2020
11. PW-5 Sh. Vikas Tiwari, deposed that he is not aware who was the owner of the property no. 114-115, Satya Niketan, Delhi, and he did not collect the rent from the same property.
12. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. APP for the State after seeking permission from the court, the witness denied his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C in toto. The witness denied the suggestion that he knew accused Alind Kumar Garg personally and that he used to collect rent from the abovesaid property and that he was won over by the accused and was deposing falsely. The witness was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite giving opportunity.
13. 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. It is further stated that he did not receive any Notice from MCD regarding the present case. The accused opted not to lead DE.
14. Final arguments heard. Case file perused.
15. Short point for determination before this court is as under:
''Whether on 02.11.2017 at property bearing H. No. 115, Satya Niketan, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station South Campus, New Delhi, the accused had initiated and continued the unauthorized construction/work in the shape of basement without obtaining the necessary sanction from the concerned Deputy Commissioner, MCD and further tampered the seal and committed trespass."
16. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that the ocular and the Digitally FIR No.139/2019 PS Vasant Kunj (South) State Vs. Alind Kumar Garg Page No. 6 of 11 signed by CHARAN CHARAN SALWAN SALWAN Date:
2026.03.23 17:21:26 +0530 CNR No.DLND02-009412-2020 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.
17. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused is innocent and is falsely implicated in the present matter. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has essentially made two arguments. Firstly, it is argued that the owner of the property in question is not the accused and secondly, it is argued that the investigation conducted is not proper and has many discrepancies.
18. Before appreciating the evidence in hand, it is important to go through the relevant provision of the Act:
"345-A: Power to seal unauthorised constructions. (1) It shall be lawful for the Commissioner, at any time, before or after making an order of demolition under section 343 or of the stoppage of the erection of any building or execution of any work under section 343 or under section 344, to make an order directing the sealing of such erection or work or of the premises in which such erection or work is being carried on or has been completed in the manner prescribed by rules, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act, or for preventing any dispute as to the nature and extent of such erection or work. (2) Where any erection or work or any premises in which any erection or work is being carried on, has or have been sealed, the Commissioner may, for the purpose of demolishing such Digitally signed by CHARAN FIR No.139/2019 PS Vasant Kunj (South) State Vs. Alind Kumar Garg Page No. 7 of 11 CHARAN SALWAN SALWAN Date:
2026.03.23 17:21:31 +0530 CNR No.DLND02-009412-2020 erection or work in accordance with the provisions of this Act, order such seal to be removed. (3 ) No person shall remove such seal except- (a) under an order made by the Commissioner under sub-section (2); or (b) under an order of an Appellate Tribunal or the Administrator, made in an appeal under this Act.] "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 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 Digitally signed by CHARAN FIR No.139/2019 PS Vasant Kunj (South) State Vs. Alind Kumar Garg Page No. 8 of 11 CHARAN SALWAN SALWAN Date:
2026.03.23 17:21:37 +0530 CNR No.DLND02-009412-2020 months or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both."
188 Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant empowered to promulgate such beys such direction; Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully le certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to shall if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or ury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfully employed, with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both: and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or way, or causes tends termusha chiotor affray, shall be punished with imprisonm esther description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may ewend to one thousand rupees or with both. 1000/-.
448. Punishment of house-trespass - Whoever commits house-
trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with fine."
19. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the investigation is not proper and suffers from several infirmities and inconsistencies. Firstly, it is argued that the accused is not the owner of the property in question. Secondly, it is argued that no notice was served upon the accused. Thirdly, it is argued that the prosecution has not proved that the Digitally signed by FIR No.139/2019 PS Vasant Kunj (South) State Vs. Alind Kumar Garg Page No. 9 of 11 CHARAN CHARAN SALWAN SALWAN Date:
2026.03.23 17:21:43 +0530 CNR No.DLND02-009412-2020 accused had tampered with the seal.
20. On analysis of the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. The Prosecution suffers from several deficiencies. The Prosecution has failed to prove the relation/status of the accused w.r.t. the property in question. The prosecution has not proved that the accused is the owner or builder of the property in question. The prosecution has failed to disclose the status of the accused with the property in question. The prosecution has failed to prove that the sealing notice was in the knowledge of the accused. It is pertinent to note that witness PW-1 stated in his cross-examination as follows:
"I cannot tell who is the owner of the said building. I do not have any ownership document of the said building.
XXX.
Some reporter had first informed regarding tampering of seal."
21. From the cross-examination it is clear that the prosecution has not proved that the accused has tampered with the seal. On the contrary, as per cross-examination of PW-1, the information about tampering was given by some reporter and the witness has not given any details of the reporter. It is pertinent to note that witness PW-2 stated in his cross-examination as follows:
"I had not seized the broken seals in the present case. (Vol.) No seal was found on the spot. I had not recorded the statement of any neighbors or independent persons."
22. From the cross-examination of PW-2, it is clear that the broken seal Digitally signed by CHARAN FIR No.139/2019 PS Vasant Kunj (South) State Vs. Alind Kumar Garg Page No. 10 of 11 CHARAN SALWAN SALWAN Date:
2026.03.23 17:21:50 +0530 CNR No.DLND02-009412-2020 has not been seized by the I.O and thus, casts a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution.
23. The accused has also been charged of an offence u/s 188/448 of IPC. However, the prosecution has failed to the essential ingredients of the offences. Also, the prosecution has failed to prove that the necessary complaint under section 195 Cr.PC was made.
24. Therefore, in the light of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has completely failed to discharge its burden and resultantly, the accused person, namely Alind Kumar Garg S/o Roshan Lal Garg is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt and stands Acquitted of the charges leveled upon him.
Announced in open Court (CHARAN SALWAN) on 23.03.2026. Judicial Magistrate First Class-01 New Delhi District: Patiala House Courts New Delhi/ 23.03.2026 It is certified that the present Judgment runs into elevan pages and each page bears signature of the undersigned.
(CHARAN SALWAN) Judicial Magistrate First Class-01 New Delhi District: Patiala House Courts New Delhi/ 23.03.2026 Digitally signed by CHARAN CHARAN SALWAN SALWAN Date:
FIR No.139/2019 PS Vasant Kunj (South) State Vs. Alind Kumar Garg Page No. 11 of 11 2026.03.23 17:21:55 +0530