Delhi District Court
State vs Ashif Ali on 16 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAGHAV SHARMA, JMFC06, SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Asif Ali
FIR NO: 184/2010
P.S. Kalkaji
U/s 461 DMC Act & 188/448 IPC
Crc No. 89189/2016
JUDGMENT
Date of its institution : 15.09.2010
Name of the complainant : Mr. S K Midha,
Retd. Deputy
Commissioner, R/o 146A,
New Colony, Gurgaon.
Date of Commission of offence : 20.04.2010
Name of the accused : Asif Ali,
S/o Sh. Ansar Ali,
R/o E11/100, Hauz Rani,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
Plea of accused : Not Guilty
Case reserved for orders : 01.04.2026
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of orders : 16.04.2026
RAGHAV Digitally signed by
RAGHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.04.16
16:21:22 +0530
FIR No. 184/2010 State vs. Asif Ali Page 1 of 8
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. Vide this judgment, I seek to dispose off the case of the prosecution filed against the accused Asif Ali for having committed the offences punishable u/s 461 DMC Act and 188/448 of Indian Penal Code, 1861 (hereinafter referred as "IPC").
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 20.04.2010 at about 07:10 AM at property no. D11/100, Hauz Rani, New Delhi accused tampered with the seal affixed by MCD and occupied the above said building despite being the same was being sealed on 08.04.2010 by the staff of building department, South Zone MCD in compliance of sealing order bearing no. 650/seal/DC/SZ/B/2010 dated 08.04.2010. Further, accused knowingly had violated the order of public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate the said order whicih was given by public servant regarding sealing of the above property. Further, accused unlawfully entered the aforesaid property and committed house trespass.
3. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC). Relevant record was collected. Final report under section 173 CrPC, was prepared against the abovenamed accused person and chargesheet was presented in the court. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused person was summoned to face trial.
4. On his appearance, a copy of chargesheet was supplied to him in terms of section 207 of CrPC. On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA FIR No. 184/2010 State vs. Asif Ali SHARMA Date: 2026.04.16 Page 2 of 8 16:21:33 +0530 notice under section 461 DMC Act and 188/448 IPC was framed against the accused person on 15.09.2011. The accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. PW1 Sh. S K Midha deposed that he received a report regarding unauthorized construction i.e. seal tampering at the property no. E11/100, Hauz Rani New Delhi vide file no. 605/seal/DC/SZ/Bldg./2010 the copy of the same is Ex.PW1/A, on the basis of the same, he had lodged a complaint before PS MN dated 21.04.2010. The copy of the same is Ex.PW1/B, on the basis of which the present FIR was registered. He also gave permission to prosecute u/s 195 in the present case to Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, the copy of the same is Ex.PW1/C.
6. PW2 HC Rambal deposed that on 29.04.2010, at about 07:10 PM he received rukka through SI Madhave Krishna on the basis of which he recorded the present case FIR, copy of same is Ex.PW2/A. He also put his endorsement on rukka Ex.PW2/B.
7. PW3 Ct. Sanjay Kumar deposed that on 08.04.2010 he had assisted the MCD staff in fixing seal on the property bearing no. E11/100 Hauz Rani, New Delhi.
8. PW5 Sh. Hisamuddin deposed that the present case is regarding unauthorized construction at E11/100 Hauz Rani Malviya Nagar New Delhi. Further, PW5 prepared the vacation notice dated 28.04.2010 and JE brought into the knowledge of PW5 the factum of tampering of seal over the said property. PW5 brought the said facts in to the knowledge of his senior officials vide noting Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.16 16:21:41 +0530 FIR No. 184/2010 State vs. Asif Ali Page 3 of 8 already Ex.PW1/A. On 16.07.2010, he requested the then DC to take action against the accused vide noting Mark X on the ground that the accused was habitually tampering the seal. He had initiated the file of unauthorized construction bearing no. 15/UC/B1/SZ/10, dated 12.02.2010. PW5 wrote letter to the then SHO PS Malviya Nagar on 29.07.2010 to take action against the accused. PW5 had taken permission to take action against accused u/s 448 IPC.
9. PW6 Inspector Madhav Krishna deposed that on 29.04.2010, he received a letter from Dy. Commissioner, MCD (South Zone) regarding tempering of seal and illegal construction at the property mentioned in the complaint. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka and also got registration of FIR of same complaint. The said rukka is Ex.PW6/A. After registration of FIR, he went to the spot alongwith the HC Manohar Lal who had taken to spot and thereafter, at his instance the site plan was prepared and the same is Ex.PW6/B. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of the witnesses. Thereafter, he collected documents from Aasif and he arrested Aasif and prepared the arrest memo and personal search memo which are Ex.PW6/C and D. He released him on police bail. Thereafter, he collected the documents from the MCD office relating to the present case. Thereafter, he got permission from the MCD under Section 199 Cr.P.C. and the same is already Ex.PW1/C. Thereafter, he also added section 448 IPC alongwith with Section 188 IPC and 461 of DMC Act. After completion of investigation, he filed chargesheet before the Court.
10. PW7 Sh. Anurag Shandilya deposed that on 12.02.2010 on inspection of premises E11/100, Hauz Rani, New Delhi unauthorized construction was found at ground, first, second and third floor and the same was booked vide file no.
15/UC/B1/SZ/10 dated 12.02.2010. Show cause was served upon the owner / Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.16 16:21:56 +0530 FIR No. 184/2010 State vs. Asif Ali Page 4 of 8
occupier regarding unauthorized construction u/s 343 & 344 DMC Act 1957. He submitted report regarding the same on 16.03.2010, the photocopy of the same is Mark PW7/1. Show cause notice u/s 345 A of MCD Act 1957 was also served upon the occupant/owner of the above mentioned building and as no reply was received from the owner, a report regarding sealing of the property was prepared, the noting of the same is already mark PW7/1. Accordingly, on 08.04.2010 the above mentioned premises was sealed vide noting, the photocopy of the same is Mark PW7/2.
11. PW8 SI Manohar Singh deposed that on 04.06.2010, he along with Ct. Sanjay and IO SI Madhav Krishna went to H. NO. E11/100, Hauz Rani where the accused Asif Ali met and he informed that he purchased the above mentioned property from his mama namely Athar Ali through GPA and started re constructing house on the property after demolishing the old structure. He also informed that when he started the construction, the MCD officials sealed the property but he broken the seal and constructed building at the property. Thereafter, IO also arrested the accused after due enquiry and he was released on police bail.
12. PW9 Ravi Kumar Meena deposed that on 20.04.2010, he was in routine inspection in area of Hauz Rani. When he reached at property bearing no. E 11/100, Hauz Rani, New Delhi, he noticed the seal affixed by the MCD on the aforesaid property was found tempered. He initiated proceedings for FIR against seal tempering. The initiating proceedings is already Ex.PW1/A. On 23.04.2010 he alongwith police officials went to aforesaid property and resealed the same vide already Ex.PW1/A from point B to B1. Thereafter, he sent watch and ward letter qua the aforesaid property which is already Ex.PW1/A, from pointDigitally C tosigned C1.
RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.16 16:22:03 +0530 FIR No. 184/2010 State vs. Asif Ali Page 5 of 8
13. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the accused. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
14. The case of prosecution is that accused had tempered with the seal affixed by MCD which was affixed vide order dated 08.04.2010. PW1 is the retired Deputy Commissioner who had filed the present complaint. In his evidence he admitted that the complaint was based on a written communication received from JE regarding the seal tempering. It needs to be noted that this JE was not named by PW1 to be Mr. Anurag Meena. However, there is no witness with this name who was examined by prosecution rather, its PW9 Mr. Ravi Kumar Meena which the prosecution says to be the junior engineer who saw the seal tempered and who made the written communication. Testimony of this witness would reflect that he neither took the photographs of the tempered seal, nor prepared report on the spot about the same, did not take signature of public persons testifying the seal being tempered. Although, he claimed that he had taken photographs and handed the same to IO, he admitted that there was no receiving. This is important given no photographs has been filed with the charge sheet. This aspect is crucial as it hits at the very core of issue i.e. seal was tempered by accused.
15. PW2 and PW3 are formal police witnesses who only carried rukka and assisted in fixing of seal. Their testimony has no relevance for proving the charges. PW4 was cited by prosecution as an independent witness however, this witness turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution at all. He dismissed all the suggestions given by Ld. APP and completely resiled from his statement. In his examination in chief, PW5 staright away stated that he did not know anything about the present case. It was only in cross examination by Ld. Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.16 16:22:13 +0530 FIR No. 184/2010 State vs. Asif Ali Page 6 of 8 APP that he admitted the suggestions. In his cross examination PW5 admitted that he had not seen the tempered seal rather, it was only communicated to him by JE thereafter, he communicated the same to DC. This statement of PW5 makes him a hearsay witness as far as seal being tempered by accused is concerned. PW5 may be witness to correspondence conducted inter department however, he can not be called relevant witness for proving tempering of seal. PW6 is the IO of the case. In addition to the steps taken by him during investigation, he stated that he had obtained photocopy of documents from accused Asif regarding his possession on the property. While IO has stated so it needs to be noted that there is no seizure memo which was prepared nor the IO verified these photocopy documents from the other signatories, oath commissioner and from the seller of stamp. In the absence of any seizure memo and proof of these documents, these documents are unreliable for showing that accused was in possession of property. IO has failed to investigate and establish the possession. PW7 is official from MCD. He was JE at the relevant time. He stated that unauthorized construction was found to have been undertaken. He exhibited the notices issued to occupant of the building. PW7/1 is the notice. While this document is called to have been served on occupant. There is no receiving of the occupant taken on these documents. In the absence of proof of any such offence, it can not be stated that this document was ever served on occupant whoever he was. This is important because there is no evidence to show that the accused was owner or possessor of the subject property. Testimony of PW8 is irrelevant to the extent that he talks about admission of possession of subject property by accused given no document has been made qua this admission. Testimony to this extent of PW8 is hearsay in nature.
Digitally signedRAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.16 16:22:30 +0530 FIR No. 184/2010 State vs. Asif Ali Page 7 of 8
16. The prosecution has miserable failed to prove the charge against the accused Asif Ali and therefore, he stands acquitted for the offence u/s 461 DMC Act & 188/448 IPC. Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.16 16:22:36 +0530 Announced in the open court (RAGHAV SHARMA) on 16.04.2026 JMFC06, South East, New Delhi It is certified that this judgment contains 08 pages and each page Digitally signed by bears my signatures. RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.16 16:22:41 +0530 (RAGHAV SHARMA) JMFC06, South East, New Delhi/16.04.2026 FIR No. 184/2010 State vs. Asif Ali Page 8 of 8