Delhi District Court
State vs Rishabh Garg on 26 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. NUPUR GUPTA :
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. RISHABH GARG
FIR NO. 381/2023
PS (KALKAJI)
u/s 3 DPDP ACT
JUDGMENT :-
Srl. No. of the case & Date of Cr CASES 9449/2023 institution 16.11.2023.
Date of commission of offence 26.08.2023.
Name of the complainant HC Harish. Name of the accused Rishabh Garg. Nature of offence complained of U/S. 3 DPDP Act Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty Date of reserving order 16.05.2025. Final Order Acquitted u/s. 3 DPDP Act Date of order 26.06.2025.
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 26.08.2023, at about 07:30 PM, infront of Deshbandhu College, Kalkaji, New Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of PS Kalkaji, one board containing words "Fully AC PG Boys and Girls Well Furnished 3 time meal only for Rs.5,500/- Garg PG 9999222070 9810073597" was found affixed. It is alleged that the accused had affixed the said board containing the above said words on public property in public view.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on FIR No. 381/2023 State Vs. Rishabh Garg Page No. 1/6 Digitally signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.06.26 16:39:29 +0530 16.11.2023 and cognizance was taken on 12.01.2024. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to accused on 16.04.2024 and notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for offence punishable U/s. 3 DPDP Act was given to accused on 21.08.2024, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Before recording of prosecution evidence, accused admitted copy of FIR and CAF without admitting contents thereof. To prove its case, prosecution has examined two witnesses.
4. PW1 is Head Constable Harish, who is complainant as well as Investigating Officer in the present matter. He deposed that on 26.08.2023 he was on patrolling duty with Constable Dipankar and during patrolling duty, they reached infront of Deshbandhu College, Kalkaji, Delhi and noticed one flex board on the fence of public park containing the words "PG for Boys and Girls Rs.5,500/-" along with some other words and mobile number. He then took the photographs of the said board using his mobile phone and then removed the same from the said fence. He then seized it vide memo Ex.PW1/1 and then prepared rukka vide Ex.PW1/2 and handed over the same to Constable Dipankar to get the FIR registered at the PS. After some time, Constable Dipankar returned 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 present case was marked to him. During the course of investigation, he prepared the site plan at the spot vide memo Ex.PW1/3. He further deposed that he contacted on the mobile number which was mentioned on the board and it was responded by accused and he asked him to come to the spot. Subsequently, accused came to the spot and he served notice u/s 41A CrPC upon the accused vide Ex.PW1/4. He then interrogated the accused and recorded his statement vide Ex.PW1/5. He then released the accused vide pabandinama Ex.PW1/6. Thereafter, they returned to the PS along with the case property and he deposited the FIR No. 381/2023 State Vs. Rishabh Garg Page No. 2/6 Digitally signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.06.26 16:39:36 +0530 same in the Malkhana of the PS. He then recorded statement of witness / Constable Dipankar u/s 161 CrPC and placed the same on record. During further course of investigation, he obtained CAF of the mobile number which was mentioned on the board the samd said CAF is Ex.PW1/7. After completion of the investiation, he prepared the charge-sheet and submitted the same before the Court. He correctly identified the accused and the case property from its photographs before the Court. Photograph of the case property is Ex.P-1. He was then duly cross-examined and discharged.
5. PW2 is Constable Dipankar, who deposed that on 26.08.2023, he was posted as Constable at PS Kalkaji and on that day, he was on patrolling duty along with Head Constable Harish. At about 07:30 PM, they reached infront of Deshbandhu College, Kalkaji, New Delhi and noticed one flex board hanging on the fence of the public park containing the words "PG for Boys and Girls Rs.5,500/-" and some other words and mobile number. HC Harish then took the photographs of the same and they then removed the same from the fence. HC Harish then seized it vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/1. Thereafter, HC Harish prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him to get the FIR registered at the PS. Thereafter, he left the spot and reached at PS Kalkaji and got the present FIR registered through the then Duty Officer. Thereafter, he returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR, original rukka and certificate u/s 65B to HC Harish as the investigation of the case was marked to him. He further deposed that during the course of investigation, IO prepared the site plan at the spot vide memo Ex.PW1/3. IO then contacted on the mobile number which was mentioned on the board and it was responded by the accused. IO asked him to come to the spot and, subsequently, accused came to the spot and met them. IO then served notice u/s 41A CrPC upon accused vide Ex.PW1/4. IO then interrogated the accused and FIR No. 381/2023 State Vs. Rishabh Garg Page No. 3/6 Digitally signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.06.26 16:39:44 +0530 recorded his statement vide report Ex.PW1/5. IO then released the accused vide pabandinama which is Ex.PW1/6. Thereafter, they returned to the PS along with case property and IO deposited the case property in the Malkhana. IO then recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC and placed the same on record. He correctly identified the accused and the case property from its photographs which is Ex.P-1. He was duly cross-examined and discharged.
6. No other PW was examined by prosecution and PE was closed on 15.02.2025.
7. Statement of accused was recorded U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. on 01.04.2025, 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;FIR No. 381/2023 State Vs. Rishabh Garg Page No. 4/6
Digitally signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.06.26 16:39:50 +0530 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, complainant/IO has alleged that any person had actually seen the accused putting up/affixing the board at the spot on above mentioned date, time and 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 FIR No. 381/2023 State Vs. Rishabh Garg Page No. 5/6 Digitally signed by NUPUR NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.06.26 16:39:59 +0530 accused and therefore, no offence punishable under Section 3 DPDP Act is made out against accused. Accordingly, accused Rishabh Garg is acquitted for offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act.
(Typed directly on Court computer and announced in the open Court on 26.06.2025).Digitally signed by NUPUR
NUPUR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.06.26 16:40:05 +0530 (Dr. Nupur Gupta) Chief Judicial Magistrate, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No. 381/2023 State Vs. Rishabh Garg Page No. 6/6