Delhi District Court
State vs Manoj Kumar on 22 January, 2026
Page 1 of 8
IN THE COURT OF ASHISH KUMAR MEENA
JMFC-01, SAKET COURT (SOUTH) NEW DELHI.
FIR NO.: 733/2020
U/S: 188/488 IPC & 461 DMC ACT
PS: Mehrauli
STATE
VS.
MANOJ KUMAR, S/o SH. RAJ KUMAR,
R/O H. NO. 29/D-2, WARD NO.1,
MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI. ...... ACCUSED
1. Sr. No. of the case : 191/2021
2. The date of offence : 23.09.2020
3. The name of the complainant : DC, MCD.
4. The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
5. The date of order : 22.01.2026
6. The final order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. As per the complainant of concerned Deputy Commissioner, South Zone, MCD, Delhi ("DC, MCD"), Manoj Kumar ("Accused") is facing trial for the allegations that on or before 23.09.2020, at time unknown, at the property situated at T- 1/2, Ward No.6, Mehrauli, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS-Mehrauli, the accused, being the owner/builder/occupier of the aforesaid property, has tampered/break open the seal which was affixed on the aforesaid property by officials of MCD, South Zone. Furthermore, the accused has trespassed on the said property, and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s Digitally signed ASHISH by ASHISH KUMAR FIR No:733/2020 PS:Mehrauli State Vs. Manoj Kumar KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.01.22 17:05:38 +0530 Page 2 of 8 188/448 IPC r/w 461 of DMC Act, 1957.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO. Consequently, accused was summoned after taking cognizance of offence. The accused was charged u/s 188/448 IPC r/w 461 DMC Act to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined three witnesses. PW-1 Sh. Mayank Tomar (the then JE, MCD) has deposed that on 23.09.2020, he was on special duty regarding checking of seal tampering in Mehrauli Ward, SDMC. The witness reached Mehrauli at around 10:00 a.m. and inspected various properties. Out of the inspected properties, after matching the photographs with the unauthorized construction and sealing files, he identified property bearing no. T-1/2, Ward No. 6, Mehrauli, New Delhi. However, the said photographs was not available on the judicial case file. He found that the seal affixed on property bearing no. T-1/2, Ward No. 6, Mehrauli, New Delhi, had been tampered with. He matched the said property with the photographs available in the unauthorized construction file and the sealing file. Upon reaching the office, he initiated a noting for lodging of an FIR against the owner/builder on 23.09.2020 itself vide Ex.PW2/C (tendered by PW2). Thereafter, on the basis of the internal noting, a complaint was lodged by the then Deputy Commissioner (South Zone), pursuant to which an FIR was registered. The IO of the case called him for identification of the case property. Accordingly, he visited the said property on 13.11.2020 and informed the IO that the owner/builder of the property had tampered with the seal affixed by MCD on Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No:733/2020 PS:Mehrauli State Vs. Manoj Kumar MEENA Date:
2026.01.22 17:05:41 +0530 Page 3 of 8 26.03.2019. The IO prepared the site plan at his instance vide Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, the IO recorded his statement. The witness was duly cross-examined by the accused.
4. PW-2 Sh. Anil Kumar (JSA, MCD) was a summoned witness and produced the UC File No. 508/UC/B-II/SZ/15 and Sealing File no., 3414/Seal out of which he brought documents such as internal noting of show cause notice u/s 345 (A) of DMC Act vide Ex.PW2/A (colly), watch and ward letter dated 29.03.2019 vide Ex.PW2/B, Internal noting of FIR u/s 448/188 IPC r/w 461 of DMC Act vide Ex. PW2/C, Photographs of sealing and demolition action dated 26.03.2019 vide Ex.PW2/D (colly), Photograph of property dated 28.08.2015 vide Ex.PW2/E (OSR), Show cause notice u/s 345-A of DMC Act dated 18.03.2018 vide Ex.PW2/F and Watch and ward notice dated 10.08.2018 vide Ex.PW2/G. The witness was duly cross-
examined on behalf of the accused.
5. PW-3 ASI Kailash Joshi (IO of this case) has deposed that on 22.10.2020, a complaint sent by MCD under Sections 188/448 IPC read with Section 461 of the DMC Act was received at PS Mehrauli and the same was marked to him by the SHO on 22.10.2020. He endorsed the complaint and got the FIR registered on 10.11.2020 vide Ex.PW3/A. During the course of investigation, he personally visited the MCD office and obtained relevant documents pertaining to the case. He called JE Sh. Mayank Tomar telephonically and requested him to join the investigation. Thereafter, on 13.11.2020, he met JE Sh. Mayank Tomar at the property bearing Ward No. 6, House No. T-1/2, Mehrauli, New Delhi. The JE pointed out the said property and Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH FIR No:733/2020 PS:Mehrauli State Vs. Manoj Kumar KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.01.22
17:05:45
+0530
Page 4 of 8
informed him that the seal affixed by MCD on the said property had been found tampered with. At the instance of the JE, he prepared the site plan of the property vide Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of JE Sh. Mayank Tomar under Section 161 Cr.P.C. During investigation, he came to know that one Manoj Kumar Gupta was the owner of the property in question, as his name was mentioned in the MCD documents. He also made inquiries from the locality, which confirmed that Manoj Kumar Gupta was the owner of the subject property. He obtained the mobile number of the owner during local inquiry. However, the owner was not present at the property at that time. He called the owner from the spot and asked him to visit the Police Station in connection with the present case. Thereafter, he returned to the Police Station. The owner of the subject property, Manoj Kumar Gupta, came to the Police Station on 17.11.2020. He served him with a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to produce property documents and other relevant documents vide Ex.PW3/B. The owner had already brought the relevant documents alongwith him and produced the property documents before him. The same were taken into possession by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C. He interrogated the accused regarding the seal tampering and served a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. upon him vide Ex.PW3/D. He bound down the accused vide Ex.PW3/E. He wrote letters to the Assistant Engineer, Building Department, South Zone, MCD, seeking permission under Section 467 of the DMC Act and Section 195 Cr.P.C vide Ex.PW3/F and Ex.PW3/G. After obtaining the requisite permission, he completed the investigation, prepared the charge- sheet under Sections 188/448 IPC read with Section 461 of the Digitally DMC Act, and submitted the same before the concerned Court. signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No:733/2020 PS:Mehrauli State Vs. Manoj Kumar MEENA Date:
2026.01.22 17:05:48 +0530 Page 5 of 8 The witness was duly cross-examined by the accused.
6. Vide separate statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C., the accused has admitted the present FIR, Certificate u/s 65B IEA supporting the FIR and Complaint of DC, South Zone, MCD. In view of the same, remaining witnesses were dropped from the list of witnesses. Accordingly, prosecution evidence concluded.
7. 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 in this case. He has stated that he is innocent and all the exhibits are false and manipulated. Further, the accused wished to lead defence evidence.
8. Accused has examined Sh. Vishal Jangda as DW-1 who deposed that no seal was affixed on 26.03.2019 at the subject property and the subject property was demolished by MCD twice. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State.
9. Short point for determination before this court is as under:-
''Whether on or before 23.09.2020, at time unknown, at the property situated at T-1/2, Ward No.6, Mehrauli, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS-Mehrauli, the accused, being the owner/builder/occupier of the aforesaid property, has tampered/break open the seal which was Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No:733/2020 PS:Mehrauli State Vs. Manoj Kumar MEENA Date:
2026.01.22 17:06:04 +0530 Page 6 of 8 affixed on the aforesaid property by officials of MCD, South Zone. Furthermore, the accused has trespassed on the said property, and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 188/448 IPC r/w 461 of DMC Act, 1957."
10. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that the ocular and the 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.
11. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused is innocent and falsely implicated in the present matter.
Further, it is submitted that the prosecution has no evidence against the accused, hence, he liable to be get acquitted from all charges.
12. Final argument heard. Record Perused.
13. In the present case accused is charged under Section 188/448 IPC r/w 461 DMC Act. Thus, the prosecution is required to prove that the concerned official of MCD has sealed the property in question on 26.03.2019 and the same was found to be broken on 07.09.2020. The prosecution is also required to prove that the said seal was tampered by the accused Manoj Kumar. In this regard, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Mayank Tomar, who has deposed that during inspection on 07.09.2020 the seal affixed by MCD was found to be tampered. Thus, it is clear that ASHISH KUMAR the said seal was not affixed by him. PW-1 has only deposed that MEENA Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR FIR No:733/2020 PS:Mehrauli State Vs. Manoj Kumar MEENA Date: 2026.01.22 17:06:07 +0530 Page 7 of 8 factum of his inspection conducted on 07.09.2020 and the fact that he found that the alleged seal found to be broken. Therefore, it was imperative for the prosecution to prove the factum of sealing proceedings conducted on 26.03.2019. However, it is to be noted that the IO and prosecution has not examined the concerned official who affixed the seal/conducted the sealing proceeding. It is also to be noted that the document pertaining to sealing proceeding are placed on record by PW-2 Anil Kumar. However, despite placing the copy of UC File and Sealing File, the concerned official has not been examined. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of sealing proceeding initiated on 26.03.2019.
14. In view of this Court, the prosecution was required to prove that the property was sealed by MCD and the same was consequently tampered by the accused, thus, accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 188/448 IPC. Notably, the IO and concerned official of MCD have not placed most relevant document before this Court to prove that the property was actually sealed on 26.03.2019. The said lapse in investigation proves to be fatal to the case of prosecution.
15. From the aforesaid discussion, it is very clear that the manner in which the investigation has been conducted on the spot, it makes the prosecution version highly doubtful. The prosecution was required to prove that the accused, being owner/builder/occupier, has tampered with the seal affixed on 26.03.2019. However, there is no evidence on record which proves that the seal was affixed by concerned official of MCD.
ASHISH
16. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to KUMAR MEENA Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR MEENA FIR No:733/2020 PS:Mehrauli State Vs. Manoj Kumar Date: 2026.01.22 17:06:11 +0530 Page 8 of 8 prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
17. Hence, accused Sh. Manoj Kumar, S/o Sh. Raj Kumar stands acquitted of the offence under Section 188/488 of Indian Penal Code r/w Section 461 of The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, he has been charged with. Ordered accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.01.2026. IT IS CERTIFIED THAT THE PRESENT JUDGMENT RUNS INTO EIGHT PAGES AND EACH PAGE BEARS SIGNATURE OF THE UNDERSIGNED. Digitally signed ASHISH by ASHISH KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2026.01.22 17:06:16 +0530 (ASHISH KUMAR MEENA) JMFC-01/SAKET COURT(SOUTH), NEW DELHI/22.01.2026 FIR No:733/2020 PS:Mehrauli State Vs. Manoj Kumar