Delhi District Court
State vs Savitri on 19 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. NISHAT BANGARH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-01 (CENTRAL), DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT02-004168-2016
FIR No. 40/2015
PS: Karol Bagh
U/s: 188 IPC & 461 DMC Act
State vs. Savitri
JUDGMENT
(a) Sr. No. of the Case 295087/2016
(b) Date of offence 07.01.2015
(c) Complainant Tara Chand Gautam, Asst. Engineer (building),
North DMC, Delhi.
(d) Accused name and Savitri W/o Sh. Magan Das, R/o-H. No.2552,
address Gali No. 36, Regharpura, Delhi.
(e) Representation Mr. Vijay Dagar, Ld. APP for the state
Mr. V. K. Bajaj, Ld. Counsel for accused Savitri.
f) Offence Under Section 188 IPC & 461 DMC Act
(g) Plea of accused Plead not guilty
(h) Final Order Acquitted
(i) Date of Institution 06.01.2016
(j) Date when judgment was 16.12.2025 reserved
(k) Date of judgment 19.12.2025 State Vs. Savitri FIR No. 40/2015 PS: Karol Bagh Page 1 of 14 Digitally signed by NISHAT NISHAT BANGARH BANGARH Date:
2025.12.19 17:41:39 +0530 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION
1. The prosecution story, in brief is that on 28.01.2014, 3 rd floor of property bearing No. 4075, Gali no. 37, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was sealed by concerned JE (B), Karol Bagh Zone, but accused as an owner, termpered with abovesaid seal without permission of concerned authorities and intentionally disobeyed the direction not to tempered with the seal and had committed the offence punishable u/s 188 IPC and 461 DMC Act. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out and chargesheet was filed.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2. On finding a prima facie case to proceed against the accused, cognizance of the offence was taken. The provisions of Section 294 Cr.P.C. were duly complied with. Arguments on the point of framing of notice were heard and a formal notice was framed for commission of offence u/s 188 IPC and 461 DMC Act against the accused on 18.05.2016, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. A statement of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 09.10.2024 wherein she has admitted the genuineness of sanction given by Deepak Purohit, Depy. Commissioner, North DMC which is Ex. A1. In view of the statement, witness namely Sh. Deepak Purohit was dropped. State Vs. Savitri FIR No. 40/2015 PS: Karol Bagh Page 2 of 14 Digitally signed by NISHAT
BANGARH NISHAT Date:
BANGARH 2025.12.19 17:41:44 +0530 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has examined following witnesses:
Sr. No. Name Role of witness
PW-1 Sh. Ratan Lal Public witness
PW-2 ASI Ramesh Chand Official witness
PW-3 Sh. S. M. Gupta, Retd. Asst. Official witness.
Engineer
PW-4 Sh. Tara Chand Gautam Complainant in FIR
PW-5 SI Naresh Kumar Investigating Officer
5. PW-1 Sh. Ratan Lal has deposed that 3 rd floor of H. No. 4075, Gali no. 37, Regharpura, is under the ownership of accused Savitri who was doing unauthorized construction on the said floor. In pursuance of which, the said floor was sealed by MCD on 21.08.2014. On 07.01.2025, accused had broken the seal on 3rd floor. He saw her coming downstairs with some of her articles. Sh. S. M.Gupta had visited the 3rd floor of the building and found that seal has been tempered. He further submits that he had stated the said fact. Witness has correctly idenitified the accused.
During his cross-examination, he has admitted that a civil suit filed by his wife against the accused is still pending. He has stated that he has filed a written complaint with the police as well as with the MCD regarding the fact that he has seen the accused coming from the roof of the building. He has admitted that he State Vs. Savitri FIR No. 40/2015 PS: Karol Bagh Page 3 of 14 Digitally signed by NISHAT BANGARH NISHAT Date:
BANGARH 2025.12.19 17:41:49 +0530 has not seen the accused tempering with the seal, he has just seen her coming downstairs with some articles and has understood that she has broken the seal put by MCD. He has also admitted that accused is not residing in any portion of property bearing H. No. 4075, Gali no. 37, Regharpura. Further, it is submitted by him that he had not given CCTV footage to police or MCD, he has only given photographs to police and MCD.
6. PW-2 is ASI Ramesh Chand. He has proved following documents.
(a) FIR bearing No. 40/15 dated 10.01.2015, PS Karol Bagh which is Ex. PW2/A (OSR).
(b) DD Entry No. 34A which is Ex. PW2/B.
(c) Certificate u/s 65 B of IEA in support of FIR which is Ex. PW1/C. He has deposed that he was posted at PS Karol Bagh as Duty Officer, his working hours were from 04:00 pm to 12:00 midnight on the date of offense. At about 05:00-05:15 pm, SI Naresh handed over him a rukka, on the basis of which, he has registered an FIR through a computer installed at PS Karol Bagh. He has also made an endorsement on rukka vide DD entry No. 34A. After registration of FIR, he handed over original rukka with copy of FIR to IO/SI Naresh.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that he is not having any personal knowledge about the case.
State Vs. Savitri FIR No. 40/2015 PS: Karol Bagh Page 4 of 14 Digitally signed by NISHAT BANGARH
NISHAT Date:
BANGARH 2025.12.19 17:41:53 +0530
7. PW-3 is Sh. S. M. Gupta, Asst. Engineer. He has proved the following documents:
(a) Notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. dated 08.01.2015 which is Ex. PW3/A.
(b) Report given by him dated 05.10.2015 which is Ex. PW3/B. He has deposed that he was posted as JE and AE in building department at Karol Bagh MCD office from 11.07.2014 to 15.01.2018. On 07.01.2015, on checking the property bearing no. H. No. 4075, Gali no. 37, Regharpura, he had found that seal was tempered with. He reported the same to AE Tara Chand Gautam who further reported the same to Executive Engineer and Depy.
Commissioner of the zone. He admitted that he had received a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. from PS Karol Bagh and his report on the notice that he had discovered the seal to be tempered and upon local enquiry, Mr. Ratan Lal Regar had told him that Savitri Devi has broken the seal put by MCD. He identified the witness correctly. He has stated that he has never met with accused.
During his cross-examination, he has admitted that he or any of his staff has not conducted any enquiry as to who has tempered the seal.
8. PW-4 is Sh. Tara Chand Gautam, Retd. AE, MCD. He has proved his complaint written to SHO PS Karol Bagh on 08.01.2015 which is Ex. PW4/A. He has deposed that on 07.01.2008, he was posted as AE (B), North DMC. Complainant Ratan Lal Regar came to his office and stated that the accused is doing construction on 03rd floor of H. No. 4075, Gali no. 37, State Vs. Savitri FIR No. 40/2015 PS: Karol Bagh Page 5 of 14 Digitally signed by NISHAT NISHAT BANGARH BANGARH Date:
2025.12.19 17:41:56 +0530 Regharpura after tempering the seal put by MCD. Thereafter, he went to spot for inspection and found the complaint to be true and thereafter, made complaint dated 08.01.2025 to SHO PS Karol Bagh.
During his cross-examination, he stated that he did not join any police investigation because of his transfer. Ratan Lal Regar did not meet him on the day of inspection of the property.
9. PW-5 is Retd. SI Naresh Kumar who has proved the following documents:
(a) Rukka dated 10.01.2015 which is Ex. PW5/A.
(b) Site plan which is Ex. PW5/B.
(c) Arrest memo of accused Savitri Devi which is Ex. PW5/C.
(d) Bail bonds of accused Savitri Devi which is Ex. PW5/D. He has deposed that on 10.01.2015, he was posted as SI in PS Karol Bagh. On the said date, he received a written complaint from Tara Chand Gautam, on the basis of which, he prepared a rukka and got the FIR registered.
The investigation of the case was marked to him and during investigation, he prepared site plan, issued notice to MCD official u/s 91 Cr.P.C., in pursuance of which, copy of ownership document of property was filed by MCD as per which, accused was the owner of the disputed property. He has correctly identified the accused.
State Vs. Savitri FIR No. 40/2015 PS: Karol Bagh Page 6 of 14 Digitally signed by NISHAT BANGARH
NISHAT Date:
BANGARH 2025.12.19
17:42:00
+0530
During his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has prepared the site plan alone. He has not taken photographs at the time of preparing the site plan.
10. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence. STATEMENT U/S 313 Cr.P.C. r/w U/s 281 Cr.P.C. 11 Statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. r/w 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein the she denied all allegations against her. She further stated that she wished to lead any defence evidence. Accordingly, matter was fixed for DE.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
12. Defendant has herself deposed as DW-1. She has brought on record a certified copy of judgment dated 15.10.2024, civil suit SCJ 644/2016, titled as Lata Raigar Vs. Ramesh Kumar Raigar which is Ex. DW1/A. She has deposed that she is innocent, she has not tempered or broken the seal. She is falsely implicated in the present case by Lata Raigar.
During her cross-examination, she admitted that the property in dispute was sealed on 21.08.2014 and she is the owner of the said property which was purchased by her from Ramesh Kumar and Ors. Vide sale deed dated 20.07.2010, which is Ex. DW1/X1 (colly). She has stated that the property was sealed by the MCD on complaint of Ratan Lal Raigar when she was doing State Vs. Savitri FIR No. 40/2015 PS: Karol Bagh Page 7 of 14 Digitally signed by NISHAT NISHAT BANGARH BANGARH Date:
2025.12.19 17:42:03 +0530 construction, she was not residing in the said property at the time of construction.
ARGUMENTS
13. The Court has heard the submissions made by Ld. APP for the state as well as the Ld. defence counsel at length.
14. Ld. APP for the state submits that the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences charged as the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused.
15. Ld Defence counsel has, on the other hand, deposed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has tempered/broken the seal put by MCD. The public witness has himself admitted that he has not seen the accused tempering with the seal. Further, the officials of MCD have also admitted that they have never conducted any enquiry as to who has tempered the seal put by MCD. It is sufficiently proved that accused is not residing in the said property. Hence, there are no evidence proving that accused has broken/tempered the seal put by MCD on the property of accused. Therefore, accused is entitled to be acquitted.
INGREDIENTS OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCES
16. The accused has been charged with offences u/s 188 IPC & 461 DMC Act.
State Vs. Savitri FIR No. 40/2015 PS: Karol Bagh Page 8 of 14
Digitally
signed by
NISHAT
NISHAT BANGARH
BANGARH Date:
2025.12.19
17:42:07
+0530
17. Section 188 IPC provides punishment for disobedience of order duly promulgated by public servant and reads as under:
Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or 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 safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
18. Breaking down the language of Section 188 IPC, would lead us to the following ingredients that have to be proved against the accused by the prosecution:
1. There must be an order promulgated by a public servant who is legally authorised to issue such an order.
2.The order must direct a person either to abstain from a particular act, or to take certain order with respect to specified property in his possession or under his management.
3.The accused must have actual knowledge of the order, mere publication in the abstract is not enough to presume knowledge in every case. Absence of proof of knowledge vitiates prosecution u/s 188 IPC. (Bhoop Singh Tyagi Vs. State 2002 CRILJ2872).
4.The accused must have disobeyed the order.State Vs. Savitri FIR No. 40/2015 PS: Karol Bagh Page 9 of 14
Digitally signed by NISHAT NISHAT BANGARH BANGARH Date:
2025.12.19 17:42:12 +0530
5.Disobedience have caused or tend to have caused obstruction, annoyance or injury to a person lawfully employed; or have caused or tend to have caused danger to human life, health or safety; or have caused or tend to have caused a riot or affray.
6. intention to cause harm is not essential; it is sufficient that, the accused was having knowledge of the order and despite that has disobeyed it.
19. Section 345A of DMC Act provides the power to seal unauthorized construction and reads as under:
"(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 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."
20. Breaking down the language of Section 345A of DMC Act provides that the commissioner is having power to issue order directing the sealing of State Vs. Savitri FIR No. 40/2015 PS: Karol Bagh Page 10 of 14 Digitally signed by NISHAT NISHAT BANGARH BANGARH Date:
2025.12.19 17:42:16 +0530 property wherein illegally unauthorized constrution is being done or has been completed. It further provides that no person shall remove the seal without any order of commissioner, appellate tribunal or the administrator. Further, Section 461 of DMC Act provides the punishment for removal of seal by any person without the orders of concerned authority.
21. Having discussed the ingredients that the prosecution is required to prove in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, I find it pertinent to also reiterate one of the most well known principle of criminal jurisprudence that the standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Unless the prosecution, through such evidence, rebuts the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the accused is entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt and be acquitted.
22. Keeping in mind the above mentioned principal of criminal law, let us now ascertain the culpability of the accused through the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
DISCUSSION
23. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the third floor of property was sealed by the MCD on 21.08.2014 as the same has been duly admitted by the accused herself. It is also not in dispute that the accused is State Vs. Savitri FIR No. 40/2015 PS: Karol Bagh Page 11 of 14 Digitally signed by NISHAT NISHAT BANGARH BANGARH Date:
2025.12.19 17:42:20 +0530 the owner of the property in question. Now the only thing left to be proved by the prosecution is that the seal was tempered with/broken, and same was done by the accused. The prosecution has not filed any photographs of broken/tempered seal in its evidence. However, a public witness/PW-1 has deposed that seal put by the MCD has been tempered with/broken. This fact stands corroborated from the question raised by the counsel for the accused during cross-examination of PW-1, to which, PW-1 has responded that "I am not aware whether accused has lodged complaint against me before the MCD wherein she informed to the MCD that I have broken the seal put by MCD in order to implicate the accused in false case." The question raised during cross-
examination implicates that accused was aware that seal has been broken and she herself has also written a complaint against PW-1 before MCD. In view of this discussion, the court is of the opinion that the fact that seal put by MCD was tempered with/broken is duly proved. Further, to prove that the seal was tempered with/broken by the accused, the case of the prosecution rests only on the deposition of PW-1 Sh. Ratan Lal, who has stated in his examination-in-
chief that he has seen accused coming downstairs with some articles and has understood that she has broken the seal put by MCD. He has himself admitted that he has not seen the accused breaking the seal. Further, from the deposition of PW-1, it comes to the light that a CCTV footage of the day of incident was available with him. He has provided photographs to the MCD and police to State Vs. Savitri FIR No. 40/2015 PS: Karol Bagh Page 12 of 14 Digitally signed by NISHAT NISHAT BANGARH BANGARH Date:
2025.12.19 17:42:23 +0530 prove his deposition. However, CCTV Footage was never given to the MCD or police. The photographs alleged to have been provided to MCD and police are never brought on record. From the conduct of PW-1 and investigation agencies, the cloud of doubt on the case of prosecution is raised. Further, it is duly proved that a property dispute was pending between the wife of PW-1 an the accused. The copy of judgment in the said civil suit is also brought on record by the accused from where it is evident that PW-1 and his wife were trying to claim ownership over roof rights of the building which are stated to be under the ownership of accused. Further, this fact also raised cloud of doubt on the case of prosecution. Further, all the official witnesses have clearly stated that other than taking the statement of Sh. Ratan Lal, they have not inquired into the fact that seal has been broken by the accused or any other person. Sh. Ratan Lal has himself admitted that he has not seen the accused tempering with the seal. Cloud of doubt has already been raised on the case of prosecution, hence, the court is of the opinion that prosecution has failed to establish that accused has committed offense u/s 188 IPC and 461 DMC Act.
24. In view of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Savitri W/o Sh. Magan Das stands acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 188 IPC and 461 DMC Act. Her surety stands discharged and bail bonds stand cancelled. Original documents, if any, be returned after cancellation of State Vs. Savitri FIR No. 40/2015 PS: Karol Bagh Page 13 of 14 Digitally signed by NISHAT NISHAT BANGARH BANGARH Date:
2025.12.19 17:42:27 +0530 endorsement(s). Copy of the judgment be provided to the accused person free of cost.
25. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance, including but not limited to, furnishing of bail bonds u/s 437A of the Cr.P.C.
Pronounced and Signed Digitally
in the Open Court on 19.12.2025.
signed by
NISHAT
NISHAT BANGARH
BANGARH Date:
2025.12.19
17:42:30
+0530
(NISHAT BANGARH)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-01 (C) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 19.12.2025 State Vs. Savitri FIR No. 40/2015 PS: Karol Bagh Page 14 of 14