2025 INSC 94

Criminal Appeal No.5475 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 1 of 18

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5475 OF 2024

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7844/2023

STATE OF JHARKHAND .…. APPELLANT

VERSUS

DR. NISHKANT DUBEY & ORS. ..…RESPONDENTS

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5476 OF 2024

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7816/2023

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5477 OF 2024

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7706/2023

J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, J

1. Present appeals have been filed challenging the judgment and order dated

13

th

March, 2023 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi allowing the

writ petitions filed by the Respondents herein and quashing the First Information

Report (‘FIR ’) being Deoghar Kunda P.S. Case No.169 of 2022 registered against

the Respondents-accused persons for commission of alleged offences under

Sections 336, 447 and 448 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 10

and 11A of the Aircraft Act, 1934 holding that the FIR is vitiated by mala fides

and allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to abuse of law. The High

Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi while quashing the FIR has held as under:-

Criminal Appeal No.5475 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 2 of 18

“26. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis and considering that

Aircraft took off after permission of the ATC, Aircraft Act, 1934 is itself complete

code and there are procedure prescribed therein to lodge the complaint and of

the enquiry, in view of the Act, the competent authority has not complained

anything, even Airport Director has been made accused and even the two sons

of the petitioner no. 1 has not been spared and considering that when the Special

Act is there, Sections of Indian Penal Code are not attracted, petitioner no.1

and 4 in W.P.(Cr.) No. 448 of 2022 are Member of Parliament and petitioner

no.1 is Chairman of the Airport Advisory Committee of Deoghar Airport and

petitioner no.4 is also a member of the Standing Committee, Civil Aviation,

further considering the materials on record which suggests that several cases

have been lodged against the petitioner no.1 in W.P.(Cr.) No. 448 of 2022 which

have been quashed by this Court and some judgments are affirmed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, it transpires that F.I.R. has been lodged malafidely and

allowing to continue the proceeding will amount the abuse of process of law,

accordingly, the F.I.R. bearing Deoghar Kunda P.S. Case No. 169 of 2022

including the entire criminal proceeding registered under sections 336, 447 and

448 of the Indian Penal Code and section 10 and 11A of the Airport Act, 1934,

pending in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dumka, is hereby

quashed.”

FACTS

2. The facts, as mentioned in the FIR, are that on 31

st

August, 2022 at 17:25

hours, the Respondents-accused persons boarded a chartered plane to travel from

Deoghar Airport. After some time, the door of the plane opened and the pilot came

down and moved towards the Air Traffic Control (‘ATC’) room as the Air Traffic

Controller had denied permission for take-off. Learned counsel for Appellant-

State of Jharkhand stated that t he first informant who was Security-in -charge in

Deoghar Airport followed the pilot and when he entered the ATC room, he saw

that the pilot was creating pressure for giving Respondents- accused persons

clearance for take-off at the earliest. Thereafter, the other Respondents-accused

persons also barged into the ATC room and created pressure for the clearance to

be given to them. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant-State of

Jharkhand, pursuant to the pressure exerted by the Respondents- accused persons,

the ATC clearance was given and the chartered flight took- off at 18:17 hours even

when the sunset time on that day was 18:03 hours .

Criminal Appeal No.5475 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 3 of 18

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT -STATE OF JHARKHAND

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant- State of Jharkhand stated that the ATC

room is a restricted area and the Respondents-accused persons forcefully

trespassed and entered the ATC r oom which was a serious security breach and the

Respondents-accused persons threatened the ATC officers and coerced them to

give permission for take-off. He stated that the ATC had denied

clearance/permission to chartered flight to take-off from Deoghar Airport due to

low visibility and bad weather conditions. He pointed out that the Deoghar

Airport does not have the facility of night operation. He stated that by forcefully

obtaining the ATC clearance by threatening and creating pressure on the ATC

officers, the chartered flight with the Respon dents-accused persons on board,

took-off at 18:17 hours i.e., after sunset.

4. He submitted that there was a clear violation of Rule 14(ix) of Airport

(Security) Rules, 2011 which empowers the Security Officer to supervise the

movement of persons in the restricted areas. He contended that the said Rules of

2011 have been promulgated in exercise of powers under Section 4 read with

Section 5 of the Aircraft Act, 1934. Section 5(2)(gc) of the Aircraft Act, 1934

permits the Central Government to make rules to provide for “the measures to

safeguard civil aviation against acts of unlawful interference”.

5. He submitted that the High Court of Jharkhand failed to appreciate that the

bar under Section 12B of the Aircraft Act, 1 934 will get triggered and come into

play only after the investigation is complete and the result of investigation in the

form of the Final Report/Chargesheet is filed before the competent Court.

According to him, Section 12B does not bar the p olice from registering an FIR

and consequently conducting investigation arising out of the FIR.

6. He pointed out that in the context of prosecution under the Environment

Protection Act, 1986 which, by virtue of Section 19, mandates that no Court shall

take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on complaint made by the

Criminal Appeal No.5475 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 4 of 18

officers specified therein, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Navi

Mumbai Environment Preservation Society and Anr. v s. Ministry of

Environment (PIL No.218/2013) dated 22

nd

December, 2016 has after

considering the judgment of this Court in State (NCT) of Delhi vs. Sanjay, (2014)

9 SCC 772 held that the offence under Section 15(1) of the Environment

Protection Act, 1986 is a cognizable offence and therefore, the p olice can register

the FIR under Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short

‘Code’). The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (speaking through one

of us Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Oka as his Lordship then was) held, “Therefore, if

FIR is registered by the Police for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the

Act of 1956, the registration of offence and investigation carried out by the police

is not per se vitiated. A complaint can be made/filed by authorized officer under

Clause (a) of Section 19 before the concerned Court. While filing a complaint,

the authorized officer can always rely upon the material collected by the police

during the investigation. The Complaint can include the material collected by the

police during the investigation carried out on the basis of the FIR.” He pointed

out that the High Court of Bombay in the said case , inter alia, issued the following

interim direction at para 15(iii):-

“(III) We clarify that registration of offences by the Police under Sub- Section (1)

of Section 15 of the said Act of 1986 and the investigation carried out thereon is

not per se illegal. The officers authorized under clause (a) of Section 19 can always

file complaints in accordance with the said Code by relying upon the material

collected during the investigation and material forming part of the charge sheet

prepared by the Police.”

7. He further submitted that the finding of the High Court of Jharkhand in the

impugned judgment that the Aircraft Act, 1934 is a Special Act and a complete

Code in itself and therefore, IPC offences are not attracted, is erroneous and is in

the teeth of the law laid down by this Court in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sanjay

(supra) and in Jayant & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 2 SCC 670.

The relevant portion of the judgment relied upon in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs.

Sanjay (supra) is reproduced herein below:-

Criminal Appeal No.5475 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 5 of 18

“69. Considering the principles of interpretation and the wordings used in Section

22, in our considered opinion, the provision is not a complete and absolute bar for

taking action by the police for illegal and dishonestly committing theft of minerals

including sand from the riverbed….

xxx xxx xxx xxx

72. From a close reading of the provisions of the MMDR Act and the offence

defined under Section 378 IPC, it is manifest that the ingredients constituting the

offence are different. The contravention of terms and conditions of mining lease or

doing mining activity in violation of Section 4 of the Act is an offence punishable

under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, whereas dishonestly removing sand, gravel

and other minerals from the river, which is the property of the State, out of the

State's possession without the consent, constitute an offence of theft . Hence, merely

because initiation of proceeding for commission of an offence under the MMDR

Act on the basis of complaint cannot and shall not debar the police from taking

action against persons for committing theft of sand and minerals in the manner

mentioned above by exercising power under the Code of Criminal Procedure and

submit a report before the Magistrate for taking cognizance against such persons.

In other words, in a case where there is a theft of sand and gravel from the

government land, the police can register a case, investigate the same and submit a

final report under Section 173 CrPC before a Magistrate having jurisdiction for

the purpose of taking cognizance as provided in Section 190(1)(d) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

73. After giving our thoughtful consideration in the matter, in the light of the

relevant provisions of the Act vis-à-vis the Code of Criminal Procedure and the

Penal Code, we are of the definite opinion that the ingredients constituting the

offence under the MMDR Act and the ingredients of dishonestly removing sand and

gravel from the riverbeds without consent, which is the property of the State, is a

distinct offence under IPC. Hence, for the commission of offence under Section 378

IPC, on receipt of the police report, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take

cognizance of the said offence without awaiting the receipt of complaint that may

be filed by the authorised officer for taking cognizance in respect of violation of

various provisions of the MMDR Act. Consequently, the contrary view taken by the

different High Courts cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, overruled.

Consequently, these criminal appeals are disposed of with a direction to the

Magistrates concerned to proceed accordingly.”

8. He also submitted that in the impugned judgment, the High Court of

Jharkhand erroneously adjudicated upon disputed questions of facts even when

the investigation was at a nascent stage.

9. He lastly submitted that the High Court of Jharkhand had conducted a mini

trial while deciding the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India.

Criminal Appeal No.5475 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 6 of 18

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS -ACCUSED

10. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the Respondents-accused persons

stated that the Respondent No.1 is a sitting and three-time Member of Parliament

and Chairman of the Airport Advisory Committee, Deoghar Airport. He stated

that Respondent No.1 was accompanied among st others by Respondent No.4

(also a sitting Member of Parliament and a Member of Standing Committee, Civil

Aviation) when his flight landed from New Delhi at Deoghar Airport. He stated

that in his capacity as Chairman of the Airport Advisory Committee, Respondent

No.1 disembarked from the aircraft, met the Director of the Deoghar Airport and

reviewed the functioning of the airport and operational issues like night landing.

11. He contended that this routine meeting has been falsely represented by the

Appellant-State of Jharkhand as a forcible trespass of the ATC room at the

Deoghar Airport. He further contended that the FIR was premised on completely

incorrect facts, was illegal and mala fide for the following reasons:

S.NO. REASON PARTICULARS

1. Alleged offence governed by

the provisions of Section 12B

of the Aircraft Act.

Procedure under Section 12B of the Aircraft Act,

1934 – Precondition of complaint to be made

by/with sanction of the relevant Aviation

Authorities has been completely bypassed.

2. FIR premised on an incorrect

legal basis.

The basis of the FIR was that the Aircraft could

be operated only till 17:30 hrs. This position is

legally flawed and completely incorrect.

Rule 4 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 clearly defines

flight by night as, inter alia, a flight performed

between the period of half an hour after sunset. As per FIR, on the day of alleged incident, i.e., 31

st

August, 2022, the sunset was at 18:03 hours.

As per the Petitioner’s own affidavit before the

High Court (para 6 at page 128 of SLP), the

flight took off at 18:17 hours after the clearance from Kolkata ATC.

Therefore, the flight take-off, being within the

period of half an hour after sunset, was legal and

proper.

Criminal Appeal No.5475 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 7 of 18

3. Allegation in FIR of forcible

entry into the ATC Room,

Deoghar Airport and pressure

exerted to obtain ATC

clearance.

The clearance for take-off was given by the ATC,

Kolkata. The ATC at Deoghar Airport neither

had the authority nor the control to grant take-off

clearance. There is no allegation that the

answering Respondent tried to influence take-off

clearance from the ATC-Kolkata.

12. Learned senior counsel for the Respondents-accused persons submitted

that the provisions of the Aircraft Act, 1934 being special law shall prevail over

the Code being the general law. He pointed out that Entry 29 of the List I of the

Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India states as follows:-

“29. Airways; aircraft and air navigation; provision of aerodromes; regulation and

organization of air traffic and aerodromes; provision for aeronautical education

and training and regulation of such education and training provided by States and

other agencies.”

13. He pointed out that Section 4A of t he Aircraft Act, 1934 prescribes for the

constitution of a body to be known as the “Directorate General of Civil Aviation” .

Under sub-S ection (2) thereof, it is provided that:

“(2) The Directorate General of Civil Aviation shall be responsible for carrying

out the safety oversight of regulatory functions in respect of matters specified in

this Act or the rules made thereunder.”

14. Similarly, under Section 4B of the Aircraft Act, 1934 a “Bureau of Civil

Aviation Security” has been constituted. Under sub -section (2) thereof, it is stated

that:

“(2) The Bureau of Civil Aviation Security shall be responsible for carrying out the

regulatory and oversight functions in respect of matter relating to civil aviation

security specified in this Act or the rules made thereunder.”

15. He stated that under Section 4C of the Aircraft Act, 1934, a provision has

been made for constituting a body named as “Aircraft Accidents Investigation

Bureau”. Under sub-Section (2) thereof, it is provided that:

“(2) The Aircraft Accidents Investigation Bureau shall be responsible for carrying

out the functions in respect of matters relating to investigation of aircraft accidents

or incidents specified in this Act or the rules made thereunder.”

Criminal Appeal No.5475 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 8 of 18

16. Further, under Section 5 of the Aircraft Act, 1934, the Central Government

may make rules for regulating the manufacture, possession, use, operation, sale,

import or export of any aircraft or class of aircraft and for securing the safety of

aircraft operations. Among several subjects, the Central Government can frame

rules in relation to:

i. the measures to safeguard civil aviation against acts of unlawful

interference, under sub-clause (gc) of Section 5;

ii. safety oversight and regulatory functions, under sub-clause (qb) ; and

iii. regulatory and oversight functions in respect of matters relating to civil

aviation security, under sub-clause (qc).

17. According to learned senior counsel for the Respondents-accused persons,

a necessary concomitant which flows from the combined reading of the above is

that the safety and security of the civil aviation is completely governed under the

Aircraft Act, 1934 and the Rules framed thereunder. At this stage, he referred to

Rule 90 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, which reads as under:-

“90. Entry into public aerodromes. –

(1) No person shall enter or be in the terminal building of any Government

aerodrome or public aerodrome or part of such building or any other area in

such aerodrome notified in this behalf by the Central Government unless he

holds an admission ticket issued by the aerodrome operator or an entry pass

issued by the Commissioner of Security (Civil Aviation) or any person

authorized by the Central Government in this behalf.”

18. Therefore, according to him, the access to an aerodrome and any activities

thereafter are completely governed by the Act and/or the Rules framed

thereunder.

19. He pointed out that similarly, Parts II, III, IV and V of the Aircraft

(Security) Rules, 2011 prescribe the security measures at aerodromes, the access

control, security checks and the other security measures by aircraft operators.

Rule 18 under the above stated Part III regulates the entry into aerodrome.

Further, under the said Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2011, Rule 2(y) defines

Criminal Appeal No.5475 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 9 of 18

“security incident” which includes the contravention of breach of security laws

etc.

20. Further, Rules 45 and 46 of the Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2011 prescribe

that any accident / incident has to be reported to the Commissioner, who shall

order an inquiry to be conducted by a competent officer. Rules 45 and 46 are

reproduced herein below:-

“45. Reporting of security accident or incident. -

Every aircraft operator, aviation security group, aerodrome operator, regulated

agent and owner or operator of catering establishment shall report the security

accident or security incident to the Commissioner immediately on the occurrence of

the security accident or security incident.

46. Investigation of security accident or incident. -

(1) The Commissioner may order investigation of any security accident or security

incident and appoint an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of

security as Inquiry Officer.

(2) The Inquiry Officer shall, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the

defaulting person, make a report to the Commissioner who should forward the same

to the Central Government.”

21. Thus, according to him, even the power of inquiry and investigation at

aerodromes is only vested with authorities as prescribed under the aforesaid

Rules.

22. Since learned senior counsel for the Respondents-accused persons

repeatedly emphasised Section 12 B of the Aircraft Act, 1934, the same is

reproduced hereinbelow:

“12B. Cognizance of offences – (1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence

punishable under this Act, save on a complaint made by or with the previous

sanction in writing by the Director General of Civil Aviation or Director General of

Bureau of Civil Aviation Security or Director General of Aircraft Accidents

Investigation Bureau, as the case may be.”

23. According to him, admittedly, the procedure under the Special Act, i.e. the

Aircraft Act, 1934 was not followed in the present case. He submitted that it is a

settled principle of law that the provisions of the special law will prevail over the

provisions of the general law, i.e. the Code . Consequently, according to learned

Criminal Appeal No.5475 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 10 of 18

senior counsel for the Respondents-accused persons, the very power of the State

Police to investigate / inquire has been curtailed by the aforementioned special

procedure.

24. He emphasised that the essence of the entire FIR dated 02

nd

September,

2022 was that the Respondent No.1 had forcibly entered the ATC at the Deoghar

Airport and pressurized the personnel therein to grant permission for take-off of

their aircraft. He stated that nothing could be further from the truth as in the

present case, admittedly, the clearance for take-off was given by the ATC, Kolkata

Region due to infrastructural reasons. The take-off was completely within the

permissible limits as regulated by Rule 4 of Schedule II of the Aircraft Rules,

1937 which states as under:-

“4. Flight by Night –Flight by night for the purpose of this Schedule, except where

otherwise stated, means, a flight performed between the period of half an hour after

sunset and half an hour before sunrise.”

25. He pointed out that the Appellant’s own Affidavit dated 12

th

November,

2022 filed by the i nvestigating agency, viz., the Crime Investigation Department,

P.S. Dumka, Jharkhand before the High Court admits as under:-

“6……..These witnesses have stated that clearance to any flight for take off from

Deoghar Airport is granted by them after getting clearance from Kolkata region. After

getting clearance from Kolkata Region, the chartered flights was given ATC clearance

at about 18:15 hrs and the flight took off at about 18:17 hrs.”

26. He stated that it is inconceivable as to why the Respondents-accused

persons would attempt to exert undue influence over the ATC officials at Deoghar

Airport when the ultimate power to grant ATC clearance was in the hands of the

ATC Kolkata authorities.

27. He repeatedly emphasised that none of the allegations in the FIR made out

the offences alleged under IPC. He stated that as the ATC clearance was granted

by the ATC Kolkata Region which is more than 300 Kms. from the Deogarh

Airport, the Respondent No.1 cannot be said to have committed any act

Criminal Appeal No.5475 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 11 of 18

endangering the life or safety of anyone at the Deogarh Airport under Section 336

IPC.

28. He further stated that the allegation that Respondent No.1 pressurized the

officials of ATC Deoghar is proven false by the Appellant-State’s own Affidavit,

inasmuch as, the actual clearance was given by ATC Kolkata. Thus, there is no

question of the Respondent No.1 intimidating the ATC Deogarh officials under

Section 447 IPC.

29. He lastly contended that the FIR is one of the many instances, where the

Appellant-State of Jharkhand has filed false FIRs against the Respondent No.1

and his family. Among others, on three such occasions, those FIRs have been

quashed by the High Court and the said orders have been upheld by this Court.

COURT’S REASONING

UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND/OR SECTION 482 CODE, HIGH COURT CAN

QUASH AN FIR

30. It is settled law that in exercise of the extraordinary power under Article

226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the

Code, it is open to the High Court to quash an FIR either to prevent abuse of the

process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though it is not

possible to lay down any precise or rigidly defined formula, yet in State of

Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335 , this Court has

held that an FIR can be quashed if the allegations made in the FIR or the

complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety,

do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused

or where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the

Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to

the institution and continuance of the proceedings.

Criminal Appeal No.5475 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 12 of 18

SECTIONS 336, 447 AND 448 IPC ARE NOT MADE OUT IN THE PRESENT

CASE

31. Consequently, it is important to examine the allegations in the impugned

FIR. Accordingly, the FIR in question is reproduced in its entirety hereinbelow:-

No.JH 713487

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

(Under Section 154 Cr.P.C.)

1. District: Deoghar, P.S.: Kunda, Year 2022, FIR No.: 0169

Date and Time of FIR: 02/09/2022 00:00 hrs

2. S. No. Acts Sections

(1) IPC 336

(2) IPC 447

(3) IPC 448

(4) Aircrafts Act, 1934 10

(5) Aircrafts Act, 1934 11A

3. (a) Occurrence of Offence:

Day: Wednesday, Date from: 31.08.2022 Date to:

31.08.2022 Time Period: 6 pahar, Time from:

17.25 hrs Time to: 18:00 hrs

(b) Information received at P.S.:

Date: 02.09.2022 Time 00.05 hrs.

(c) General Diary Reference: Entry No.: 014

Date & Time: 02.09.2022

4. Type of Information (Written/Oral): Written

1 (a) Direction and distance from P.S.: South- East 8, Beat

No.:

(b) Address: Deoghar Airport, P.S. Kunda

(c) In case, Outside the limit of the Police Station Name of

P.S. District:

6 Complainant/ Informant:

(a) Name: Suman Anan

(b) Father's/Husband's Name: Late Rajeshwar Sharma

(c) Date of Birth: 1963

(d) Nationality: Indian

(e) UID No.

Criminal Appeal No.5475 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 13 of 18

(f) Passport No.

Date of Issue: Place of Issue:

(g) Id details (ration Card, Voter ID Card, Passport, UID No., Driving License,

PAN)

S.No. ID Type ID Number

(h) Address:

1. Present Address: Deoghar Airport, Kunda, Deoghar, Jharkhand, India

2. Permanent Address: Deonagar, Shastrinagar, Girideah Nagar, Girideah,

Jharkhand, India.

7. Details of the known/suspected/unknown accused with full particulars:

S.N. Name Alias Relative’s

Name

Present Address

1 Chartered Plane

Pilot

1, Unknown Kunda,

Deoghar, Jharkhand, India

2 Shree Nishikant

Dubey

1, MP Godda Lokshabha

Godda Magar, Jharkhand,

India

3 Shree Kanishk Kant

Dubey

1, Unknown, Kunda,

Deoghar, Jharkhand, India

4 Shree Mahikant

Dubey

1, Unknown, Kunda,

Deoghar, Jharkhand, India

5 Shree Manoj Tiwari 1, MP North-East, Delhi

Lokshabha, New Delhi

6 Shree Mukesh

Pathak

1, Unknown, Kunda,

Deoghar, Jharkhand, India

7 Shree Deota

Pandey

1, Unknown, Kunda,

Deoghar, Jharkhand, India

8 Shree Pintu Tiwari 1, Unknown, Kunda,

Deoghar, Jharkhand, India

9 Shree Sandip

Dhingra

1, Airport Director, Kunda,

Deoghar, Jharkhand, India

8. Reason of delay in giving the complaint/information…….

9. Details of properties of interest:

S.No. Properties Category Property Type Description Value (In Rs.)

10. Total value of property (In Rs.)

11. Inquest Report/U.D. Case No., if any:

S.NO. UIDB Number:

12. First Information contents:

To, P.S. In charge, Kunda P.S. District Deoghar,

Criminal Appeal No.5475 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 14 of 18

Sub: On 31.08.2022 in the Deoghar Airport Shri Nishikant Dubey, Hon'ble Member of

Parliament Godda and his two sons, Shri Manoj Tewari, Hon'ble Member of

Parliament and others without any permission have entered into the ATC and created

pressure by using their influence upon the ATC personnel for obtaining forceful ATC

Clearance. Sir, I , Suman Anan, Aged about 59 years, son of Late Rajeshwar Sharma,

Resident of Deo Nagar Shastri Nagar, P.S. Nagar, District Girideah (Jharkhand),

Deputy Superintendent of Police, presently posted on the post of Security-In-Charge of

the entire Deoghar Airport. Since the day of my posting I am fulfilling my duties with

devotion as per rules. With respect to the above subject this is to inform you that on

31.08.2022 at 13.05 hrs. a chartered plane from Delhi reached Deoghar Airport. In

that chartered plane following persons were found: (1) Shri Nishikant Dubey, Hon'ble

Member of Parliament Godda, (2) Shri Kanishkant Dubey, (3) Shri Mahikant Dubey ,

(4) Shri Manoj Tiwari, Hon'ble Member of Parliament. (5) Shri Kapil Mishra, Hon'ble

Member of Parliament, (6) Shri Sheshavri Dubey, (7) Sh. Sunil Tiwari and others. To

receive them, huge numbers of people were there. After receiving them passengers and

others came out. In the evening at 17.25 hrs the passengers of Chartered Plane and

persons came to see-off them at Deoghar Airport. All passengers went inside the

chartered plane and the door of the plane was closed. After some time the door of the

plane opened, the pilot came down. After coming down Pilot started moving towards

ATC. Upon seeing him moving towards ATC, I became alert from the point of view of

security and started walking behind the pilot. In this regard I would like to mention that

at Deoghar Airport still the Night Take-off/ Landing and IFR facility are not available.

Because of non availability of this facility due to Low Visibility/ Bad Weather Condition/

After Sunset, generally it was not possible to give ATC Clearance to Aircraft. On

31.08.2022 the sunset time at Deoghar was 18.03 hrs and as per my knowledge on that

day generally the Aircraft could be operated till 17.30 hrs only. When I reached the

ATC Control Room, there in the Control Room Shri Sandeep Dhingra, Director of

Airport and Pilot of Chartered Plane were already present. At that time the pilot of said

Chartered Plane was creating pressure upon the ATC personnel present at that time

and was saying that the passengers of Chartered Plane necessarily wanted to return

back today itself therefore ATC clearance be given to them. During this discussion ATC

personnel were talking on the mobile phone regarding clearance. After some time Shri

Nishikant Dubey, Hon'ble Member of Parliament Godda Parliamentary Constituency,

his both sons Shri Kanishk Kant Dubey, Shri Mahikant Dubey and Shri Manoj Tiwari,

Hon'ble Member of Parliament came inside the ATC room.

I was surprised and shocked to see the passengers in the ATC Room and I was feeling

uncomfortable. Pilot and passengers were creating pressure that the clearance be given

to them at the earliest. Thereafter they get the ATC Clearance. Pilot and passengers

departed from the ATC room. I was observing the Airport security from the ATC Room.

After some time the pilot and passengers again entered into the chartered plane and

thereafter chartered plane take-off. Therefore keeping in view all the above facts it is

clear that the above mentioned persons have violated the security measures of

operating the airport and entered into the ATC Room, despite not having availability

of, Night Operation Facility these persons ignoring the security of life and property of

the passengers have created pressure for ATC Clearance. In this regard it is necessary

to mention that through different modes the public was mentioning this incident. Today

on 01.09.2022 at about 11.30 hrs, for perusing the entire incident I went into the Control

Room. Upon perusal of C.C.T.V. of the incident I found that on 31.08.2022 Shri Mukesh

Pathak, Shri Devta Pandey, Shri Pintu Tiwari have entered into the ATC building by

violating the security measures. Therefore, keeping in view the above facts, the above

Criminal Appeal No.5475 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 15 of 18

mentioned persons have violated the security measures, which includes: (1) Pilot of

Chartered Plane, (2) Shri Nishikant Dubey, Hon'ble Member of Parliament Godda

Constituency, (3) Shri Kanishkant Dubey, (4) Shri Mahikant Dubey, (5) Shri Manoj

Tiwari, Hon'ble Member of Parliament, (6) Shri Mukesh Pathak, (7) Shri Devta Pandey,

(8) Shri Pintu Tiwari and (9) Airport Director Shri Sandeep Dhingra who has

committed negligence in fulfilling his duty and indirectly supported the passengers to

enter and remain present in the ATC Room. Therefore, kindly register a First

Information Report against all the above persons in the relevant sections and Acts and

proceed further in the matter. Faithfully Sd/- 01.09.22 Suman Annan, Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Deoghar Airport, Deoghar Copy to: (1) Deputy

Commissioner, Deoghar, (2) Deputy Superintendent of Police, Deoghar, (3) Sub

Divisional Police Officer, Sadar, Deoghar

13. Action taken: Since the above information reveals commission of offence(s) u/s as

mentioned at Item No.2.

(1) Registered the case and took up the investigation:

(2) Directed (Name of I.O.): Animanand Roshan Toppo Rank: SI (Sub Inspector)

No. 1101324 to take up the investigation or

(3) Refused Investigation due to

Or

(4) Transferred to P.S. District

on point of jurisdiction.

F.I.R. Read over to the complainant/ informant admitted to be correctly recorded and a

copy given to the complainant/ informant free of cost.

14. Signature/thumb impression of complainant/ informant

15. Date and time when dispatched to the court

Sd/-02.09.2022

Signature of Officer In- charge

Police Station:

Name: Praveen Kumar

Rank: SI (Sub Inspector)

No.

32. Upon a reading of the aforesaid FIR, this Court is of the view that offences

under Sections 336, 447 and 448 IPC are not made out in the present case.

33. Section 336 IPC seeks to punish a person who does an act rashly or

negligently and endangers human life or personal safety of others. To attract

Section 336 IPC, the prosecution must allege that the accused did the act in

Criminal Appeal No.5475 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 16 of 18

question; that it was done rashly or negligently and that it was such as to endanger

the life or personal safety of others.

34. In the present case, the Respondents-accused persons were only asking the

ATC to grant permission for take-off. This Court is of the view that the action of

the pilot and the passengers talking to ATC officials in the present case cannot be

construed as creating undue or illegal pressure on ATC officials. Moreover, as

the aircraft carrying the Respondents-accused persons had taken off after

obtaining ATC permission, it cannot be said that the Respondents-accused

persons acted rashly or negligently so as to endanger human lives. Consequently,

Section 336 IPC is not attracted to the present case.

35. Further, it is settled law that every trespass by itself is not criminal. To

constitute criminal trespass the prosecution has to allege that the trespass was

committed with one of the intents enumerated in Section 441 IPC. Accordingly,

the prosecution has to prove that the complainant had possession of the property

in question and that the accused entered into or upon the property; or after having

lawfully entered unlawfully remained there with the intention (a) to commit an

offence; or (b) to intimidate, insult, or annoy the person in possession. In the

absence of any such allegation , the offence under Section 441/447 IPC cannot be

sustained.

36. In the present case, no allegation of forcible entry or intimidation or insult

or annoyance has been made by any official of ATC. On the contrary, the Director

of Deogarh Airport has been arrayed as an accused in the FIR! Consequently,

Section 447 IPC is not attracted to the present case.

37. Also, as the ATC office is not a place used as a human dwelling or a place

of worship or a place for the custody of goods, the ingredients of Section 448 IPC

are not attracted to the present case.

38. Consequently, taking Sections 336, 447 and 448 IPC as distinct offences,

no case is made out against the respondents-accused persons.

Criminal Appeal No.5475 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 17 of 18

SINCE THE AIRCRAFT ACT, 1934 AND THE RULES FRAMED

THEREUNDER CONSTITUTE A COMPLETE CODE AND ITS SECT ION 12B

IS IN THE NATURE OF A PRE-CONDITION FOR TAKING COGNIZANCE BY

A COURT, THE LOCAL POLICE CAN ONLY FORWARD THE MATERIAL

COLLECTED BY IT TO SUCH AUTHORISED OFFICER.

39. This Court is further of the view that the Aircraft Act, 1934 as well as the

Rules framed thereunder [including Rule 14(ix) of Airport (Security) Rules,

2011] is a complete Code which deal s with safety and security of civil aviation

and aerodrome. The Aircraft Act, 1934 also prescribes a special procedure for

taking cognizance of any offence punishable under the Aircraft Act, 1934 i.e, the

complaint must be made by or with the prior sanction of the Aviation authorities.

Section 12B is in the nature of a pre-condition for taking cognizance by a Court.

40. Section 5 of the Code stipulates that “if any special law or local law for the

time being in force contemplates any special jurisdiction or power or any special

form of procedure prescribed, unless there is something to the contrary, to be

found, it is the provisions of the special law or the local law which would prevail. ”

Further, Clause (2) of Section 4, Code mandates that “all offences under any other

law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according

to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force

regulating the manner or place of investigation, inquiring into, trying or

otherwise dealing with such offences.”

41. Consequently, as a complaint can be made/filed by an authoris ed officer

alone under the Special Act i.e. the Aircrafts Act, 1934, before the concerned

Court, the local police can only forward the material collected by it during the

investigation to such authoris ed officer. It shall be open to the authorised officer

to take a decision in accordance with law with regard to filing or non-filing of a

complaint.

Criminal Appeal No.5475 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 18 of 18

CONCLUSION

42. Keeping in view the aforesaid findings, the present appeal s are dismissed

with liberty to the Appellate-State of Jharkhand to forward the material collected

by it during investigation to such authorised officer under the Aircraft Act, 1934

within four weeks, who shall take a decision in accordance with law as to whether

a complaint needs to be filed under the Aircraft Act, 1934 and the Rules framed

thereunder.

.……………….J.

[ABHAY S. OKA]

……………….J.

[MANMOHAN]

New Delhi;

January 21, 2025.