Delhi District Court
State vs Kumari Laxmi on 14 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF TAPASYA AGARWAL :
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Cr CASES 28036/2024
STATE Vs. KUMARI LAXMI
FIR No. 169/2024
PS. P.P PUR
u/s 3 DPDP ACT
JUDGMENT :-
Srl. No. of the case & Date of Cr CASES 28036/2025 institution 12.07.2024 Date of commission of offence 20.04.2024 Name of the complainant HC KULDEEP Name of the accused KUMARI LAXMI Nature of offence complained of U/S. 3 DPDP Act Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty Date of reserving order 24.03.2026 Final Order Acquitted u/s. 3 DPDP Act Date of order 14.05.2026 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 20.04.2024 at about 08:30 PM, near House No. A-5, Sharma Market, Pul Prahlad Pur, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Pul Prahlad Pur, one advertisement board was found affixed on the electricity pole containing Digitally signed by TAPASYA TAPASYA AGARWAL FIR No. 169/2024 State Vs. Kumari Laxmi Page No. 1/5 AGARWAL Date:
2026.05.14 16:05:37 +0530 the words "Biology Coaching Classes (Proficient Academy) XI, XII, CBSE, NEET & CUET By Lakshmi Singh Pul Prahlad Pur / Lakkarpur Sector - 17, Faridabad, Mobile No. 9560677274" . 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 12.07.2024 and cognizance was taken on the same date. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to accused on 22.02.2025 and notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for offence punishable U/s. 3 DPDP Act was given to accused on 08.10.2025, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Before recording of prosecution evidence, accused admitted copy of FIR, endorsement on rukka and certificate u/s 65B of IEA without admitting contents thereof. To prove its case, prosecution has examined one witness.
4. PW1 HC Kuldeep Singh Tomar deposed that on 20.04.2024, he was posted as Head Constable at PS P.P Pur. On that day, he was on patrolling duty along with HC Suresh Kumar. At about 08:30 PM, they reached at A-5, Sharma Market, Pul Prahlad Pur, New Delhi and noticed one board hanging on the electricity pole containing the words " Biology Coaching Classes/Proficient Academy" and some other words and mobile number i.e., 9560677274 was also mentioned. HC Kuldeep Singh Tomar then took the photographs of the same and then removed the same from the pole. He then seized it vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/1. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka Ex.PW1/2, and handed over the same to HC Suresh Kumar to get the FIR registered at the PS. After a while, HC Suresh Kumar returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR, certificate u/s 65B of IEA and original rukka to HC Kuldeep Singh Tomar as the investigation of the case was marked to him. During the course of investigation, IO/ HC Kuldeep Singh Tomar prepared the site plan at the spot vide memo Digitally signed by FIR No. 169/2024 State Vs. Kumari Laxmi Page No. 2/5 TAPASYA TAPASYA AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.05.14 16:05:43 +0530 Ex.PW1/3. Thereafter, he contacted on the mobile number mentioned on the banner and it was responded by the accused. However, accused stated that she will come to PS the next day. Thereafter, they returned to the PS with the case property and he deposited the case property in the Malkhana. He then recorded the statement of HC Suresh Kumar u/s 161 Cr.PC and placed the same on record.
During further course of investigation, on 21.04.2024, accused came at the PS and met him. He then informed him about the commission of the offence punishable u/s 3 DPDP Act. Thereafter, he inquired him regarding the affixation of the said board at the pole. However, the accused could not give any satisfactory answer to the said question. He then served notice u/s 41A Cr.PC upon the accused vide memo Ex. PW1/4 and bound down him in the present case. Thereafter, he interrogated the accused vide interrogation report vide memo Ex. PW1/5. Thereafter, he released the accused vide pabandinama vide memo Ex. PW1/6. He had completed the investigation and prepared the charge-sheet and submitted before the Court.
5. No other PW was examined by prosecution and PE was closed on 11.02.2026.
6. Statement of accused was recorded U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. on 11.02.2026, 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.
7. Final arguments were advanced at length by both the parties.
8. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.
9. 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.
TAPASYA FIR No. 169/2024 State Vs. Kumari Laxmi Page No. 3/5 AGARWAL Digitally signed by TAPASYA AGARWAL Date: 2026.05.14 16:05:48 +0530 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 TAPASYA AGARWAL FIR No. 169/2024 State Vs. Kumari Laxmi Page No. 4/5 Digitally signed by TAPASYA AGARWAL Date: 2026.05.14 16:05:54 +0530 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.
12. 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 Kumari Laxmi is acquitted for offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act. (Typed directly on Court computer Digitally signed by and announced in the open Court on 14.05.2026).
TAPASYA TAPASYA AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.05.14 16:05:58 +0530 ( Tapasya Agarwal) Chief Judicial Magistrate, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No. 169/2024 State Vs. Kumari Laxmi Page No. 5/5