Single judge order quashing an FIR under Section 3 of the DPDP Act. Court held that affixing a banner on an electric pole does not constitute defacement if no writing or marking with material was involved, following T.S. Marwah and HDFC Bank Ltd.
FIR No. 223/2024 and all proceedings emanating therefrom quashed; petition disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~79
versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State along with SI Aditi D-3240, PS Shakurpur
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R
1 “BNSS”
2 “CrPC”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 14:00:10
impugned poster affixed to the electricity pole. A copy of the said photograph has also been placed on record with the present petition. 3. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that, even if the allegations are taken at face value, they do not disclose the commission of any offence. The allegation pertains solely to the affixation of a banner/poster, which, it is argued, does not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 3(1) of the DPDP Act. That provision penalises defacement only where it is caused “ by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material ”. It is contended that the placing of a poster on an electric pole does not amount to such defacement. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in T.S. Marwah & Ors. v. State , in CRL M.C NO. 1920/2008 , which concerned charges under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1976 a provision in pari materia with Section 3(1) of the DPDP Act. In that case, the Court observed:
“A bare look at Section 3(1) goes to show that the offence committed therein would be punishable only if the defacement is done in respect of property in public view by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material There is nothing in the charge sheet filed against the petitioner to indicate that any property was defaced by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material The only allegation is that the banner was put on an electric pole. Mere putting of the banner will not get covered by section 3 (1) of The West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1976. It is true that Sec. 2(AA) defines defacement which includes impairing or interfering with the appearance, beauty, damaging, distinguishing, spoiling or injuring in any other way whatsoever, but Section 3(1) is not all embracing and it refers only such type of defacement for the purpose of prosecution as is done by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material.”
3 “DPDP Act”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 14:00:10
HDFC Bank Ltd. v. State & Anr4 , where proceedings under the DPDP Act were quashed on the ground that no allegation of writing or marking upon the property itself had been made.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 12, 2025/MK
4 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5860
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 14:00:10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether affixing a banner on an electric pole without writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material constitutes an offence under Section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Pr
Whether criminal proceedings should be quashed as they fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 3 of the DPDP Act?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
T.S. Marwah & Ors. v. StateFollowed¶16
T.S. Marwah & Ors. v. State, CRL M.C NO. 1920/2008
HDFC Bank Ltd. v. State & AnrFollowed¶22
2024 SCC OnLine Del 5860 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
KULDEEP KUMAR @ MONU
STATE NCT OF DELHI
SANJEEV NARULA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
