Read Time: 06 minutes
A complaint was filed by Shiv Kumar Saxena alleging that the accused, Arvind Kejriwal, misused public funds by displaying large hoardings at various public places in Dwarka, including parks, crossings, power poles, and boundary walls. These hoardings contained greetings and announcements from political figures, including Arvind Kejriwal, the then Chief Minister, and other politicians.
The Rouse Avenue Court, recently, directed the Delhi Police to register an FIR against Arvind Kejriwal under section 3 of Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 for allegedly putting up illegal hoardings.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neha Mittal held, “The complainant has placed on record the photographs with date and time stamp to show that hoardings having the names and photographs of the accused persons and other persons have been illegally put up”.
A status report filed by the SHO of Dwarka in 2022 stated that no such hoardings were found at the alleged locations and no cognizable offence was established. On September 15, 2022, the Magistrate dismissed the application, stating that field investigation was unnecessary. The complainant then filed a revision petition, and on January 21, 2025, the Special Judge set aside the order, directing the Trial Court to reconsider the application and determine whether a cognizable offence was disclosed before proceeding with further action. The matter was thus remanded back for fresh consideration.
The court observed that the complainant had prima facie complied with Section 154(3) Cr.P.C., as he had approached the police and DCP, but no action had been taken. The court found that the definition of “writing” under the DPDP Act, 2007, differed from that in the West Bengal Act. Based on the definition in Section 2(d) of the DPDP Act, 2007, the court concluded that hanging banners or hoardings amounted to defacement.
Regarding the necessity of a police investigation, the court noted that the complainant had provided photographs of the hoardings but lacked details of the printing press or individuals responsible for putting them up.
“In view therefore, this court is of the opinion that the complainant has prima facie shown that cognizable offence has been committed”, the court emphasized.
Given this, the court held that an investigation was necessary, as it was unreasonable to expect the complainant to gather such evidence. The investigating agency could not evade responsibility, particularly since delays had been caused by the police’s failure to file an Action Taken Report (ATR) despite repeated court directions.
The court emphasized that Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was designed to check police arbitrariness in FIR registration. It also highlighted the serious consequences of defacement under the DPDP Act, 2007, noting that illegal hoardings not only ruined the city's aesthetics but also posed traffic hazards.
“The seriousness of the offence punishable under Section 3 of DPDP Act 2007 can be gauged from the fact that it is not only an eyesore and public nuisance thereby destroying the aesthetic sense of the city but is also hazardous and dangerous to the smooth flow of traffic by distracting traffic and poses a safety challenge to the pedestrians and vehicles. Deaths caused by collapse of illegal hoardings are not new in India”, the court highlighted.
Concluding that a cognizable offence had been committed and the police investigation was warranted, the court directed the concerned SHO to immediately register an FIR under Section 3 of the DPDP Act, 2007, and any other relevant provisions.
For Complainant: Advocate Sowjhanya ShankaranCase Title: Shiv Kumar Saxena v Arvind Kejriwal (CT No. 8/2025)
Please Login or Register
