New Delhi: A Delhi court Tuesday directed the police to register an FIR against AAP leader and former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, acting on a complaint against him and others regarding alleged defacement of public property via illegal hoardings in Dwarka.
The court directed the investigative agencies to find out where the hoardings were prepared/printed, who put them up and at whose instance.
The complaint against Kejriwal was filed under Section 3 of Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007, which entails penalties for defacing public property.
Pointing to the deaths caused by collapse of illegal hoardings in India, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neha Mittal said: “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 pedestrians and vehicles.”
According to Section 3(1) of the said Act, whoever defaces any property in public view by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material except for the purpose of indicating the name and address of the owner or occupier of such property, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to Rs 50,000 or both.
Besides this, the Act, which applies only to Delhi-NCR, defines “defacement” of property to include impairing or interfering with appearance or beauty, damaging, disfiguring, spoiling or injuring “in any other way whatsoever”.
Also Read: Centre-Delhi ties set for repair, as BJP govt to drop all AAP era cases against L-G & Union govt
What was the case?
In the present case, one Shiv Kumar Saxena filed a complaint against Kejriwal and others for putting up “illegal hoardings” in Dwarka in 2019, terming it a violation of Section 3 of the 2007 Act.
Saxena, in his complaint, alleged that Kejriwal, along with other accused, was misusing public money by putting huge hoardings at Sector 11 DDA Park, and several other areas in Dwarka across Sectors 10 and 11, and by “decorating” crossings, roads, power poles, walls and other public places.
One of the hoardings said the Kejriwal-led Delhi government would soon commence registration for darshan at Pakistan’s Kartarpur Sahib gurdwara. Besides this, there were other hoardings extending greetings of Guru Nanak Jayanti and Kartik Purnima to residents, with photographs of PM Narendra Modi, home minister Amit Shah and BJP leader J.P. Nadda, among others, according to Saxena’s plea in court.
Saying that such display of hoardings on public property was a clear violation of the 2007 Act, Saxena filed the initial complaint in November 2019 at a police station in Dwarka.
What did the court decide?
In its 13-page order, the court said the question to be determined was whether the act of hanging banners or affixing hoardings amounted to defacement of property under the 2007 Act.
Referring to the earliest judgment on the subject, T.S. Marwah vs State (2008), the court noted that it must be kept in mind that before the 2007 Act came into the picture, the West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1976, was applied to Delhi.
Although the court acknowledged the near similarity of Section 3 in both Acts, it pointed out that there was one difference. While the 2007 Act included printing and painting under the definition of “writing”, the 1976 Act did not.
By way of its Tuesday ruling, the court said the complainant had provided visual evidence along with the date and time indicating that “illegal banners” bore the names and photos of the accused, including Kejriwal.
“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,” it noted.
Considering the definition of the term “writing” as defined in the DPDP Act, 2007, the court concluded that the act of hanging banner boards or affixing hoardings amounts to defacement of property under the said Act.
During the proceedings, Kejriwal’s counsel argued that Saxena had mentioned the names of 8-10 accused in this case, including PM Modi, in the initial complaint filed by him. However, most of these names were omitted from the present application.
The court rejected the argument that certain names had been omitted from the present complaint, saying that this could not have any bearing “on the fate” of the case at hand.
“Mentioning or omitting the name of certain persons by the complainant cannot determine the course of investigation. The investigating agency has ample power to array any person as accused, though not named as an accused in the present application/complaint, whose complicity in the commission of the offence is established from the investigation,” the judge said.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: Here are promises Delhiites will expect BJP to fulfil now that it’s won Delhi after 27 yrs
