1. Alleged unauthorized entry into an Air Traffic Control room and coercion for flight clearance — FIR registered under Indian Penal Code and Aircraft Act, 1934. (Para 2 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 162
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, MANMOHAN, JJ.
State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Nishkant Dubey & Ors. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5476 of 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7816 of 2023 And Criminal Appeal No. 5477 OF 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7706/2023, Criminal Appeal No. 5475 of 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7844/2023
Decided on : 21-01-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Arunabh Choudhury, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Adyashree Dutta, Adv. Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ankit Yadav, AOR Ms. Shaoni Das, Adv. Mr. Punit Vinay, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Arunabh Choudhury, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Adyashree Dutta, Adv. Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ankit Yadav, AOR Ms. Shaoni Das, Adv. Mr. Punit Vinay, AOR
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Quashing of criminal proceedings – In exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or inherent powers under Section 482 of Code, it is open to High Court to quash FIR either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
(2) Every trespass by itself is not criminal – To constitute criminal trespass prosecution has to allege that trespass was committed with one of intents enumerated in Section 441 IPC.
Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – In exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or inherent powers under Section 482 of Code, it is open to High Court to quash FIR either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice – Though it is not possible to lay down any precise or rigidly defined formula – FIR can be quashed if allegations made in FIR or 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 accused or where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of provisions of Code or concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to institution and continuance of proceedings. (Para 30)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 336, 447 and 448 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 125, 329(3) and 329(4)] – Aircraft Act, 1934 – Sections 10, 11A and 12B – Aircraft Rules, 1937 – Rule 90 – Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2011 – Rules 45 and 46 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Forceful trespassing into ATC room at Airport – Alleged security breach – Criminal proceedings quashed by High Court – To attract Section 336 IPC, prosecution must allege that accused did act in question; that it was done rashly or negligently and that it was such as to endanger life or personal safety of others – In present case, Respondents-accused persons were only asking ATC to grant permission for take-off – Action of pilot and passengers talking to ATC officials in present case cannot be construed as creating undue or illegal pressure on ATC officials – Every trespass by itself is not criminal – To constitute criminal trespass prosecution has to allege that trespass was committed with one of intents enumerated in Section 441 IPC – No allegation of forcible entry or intimidation or insult or annoyance has been made by any official of ATC – Section 447 IPC is not attracted to present case – Taking Sections 336, 447 and 448 IPC as distinct offences, no case is made out against respondents-accused persons – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals have been filed challenging judgment and order dated 13th March, 2023 passed by High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi allowing writ petitions filed by Respondents herein and quashing First Information Report registered against Respondents-accused persons for commission of alleged offences under Sections 336, 447 and 448 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 10 and 11A of Aircraft Act, 1934 holding that FIR is vitiated by mala fides and allowing proceedings to continue would amount to abuse of law.
Findings of Court:
Appellate-State of Jharkhand given liberty to forward material collected by it during investigation to such authorised officer under 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 Aircraft Act, 1934 and Rules framed thereunder.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Aircraft Act, 1934 bars IPC charges and whether the registration of FIR without prior sanction under Section 12B is legally sustainable. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
3. IPC offences for rashness and trespass are not attracted where take-off was authorized and no intent to intimidate or dwelling-house entry was established. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 )
4. Special laws prevail over general laws; Section 12B of the Aircraft Act, 1934 is a pre-condition for judicial cognizance, though police may collect investigative material. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 )
5. Appeals dismissed; FIR quashed regarding IPC offences; State permitted to forward investigative material to the authorized officer under the Aircraft Act, 1934. (Para 42 )
6. When is Section 336 of the IPC attracted in the context of aviation clearance?
It requires a rash or negligent act endangering human life. If a flight takes off after obtaining official ATC permission, the act of requesting clearance cannot be construed as rash or negligent endangerment. (Para 33 , 34 )
7. Does entry into an Air Traffic Control room constitute criminal trespass or house-trespass under the IPC?
Criminal trespass requires intent to commit an offence or intimidate, insult, or annoy. House-trespass requires the premises to be a human dwelling, place of worship, or custody of goods. An ATC room does not meet these criteria. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 )
8. Does Section 12B of the Aircraft Act, 1934 bar the police from investigating an offence?
No. Section 12B is a pre-condition for a court to take cognizance of an offence. Local police can investigate and collect material, but must forward it to the authorized officer for filing a complaint. (Para 39 , 41 )
JUDGMENT :
MANMOHAN, J
1. Present appeals have been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 13th 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:-
“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 31st 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 the 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.
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 room 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 pr
