Exoneration in Departmental Proceedings does not automatically lead to the quashing of a criminal prosecution, and the requirement of mandatory sanction from the Central Government is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance of the offence.

Indermeet Kaur, J.

1. The petitioners Ranbir S. Arora and Aditya Chopra seek quashing of the complaint dated 03.10.2009 of which cognizance has been taken under Sections 354/323/509/34 of the IPC. On 16.10.2010, summons had been issued to the petitioners. On 03.09.2012, the matter was referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Center hoping that the parties could arrive at an amicable settlement but no settlement could be arrived at. This was reported vide order dated 12.12.2012.

2. Record shows that a complaint was made by ‘KS’ on 03.10.2009. She was an airhostess and was on a flight IC-884 operating from Sharjah to Delhi via Lucknow. Captain Ranbir Arora was the pilot and Aditya Chopra was his co-pilot. As per the complaint, the complainant had gone to wish the pilot and co-pilot as per protocol; they were unprofessional and misbehaved with her. After taking-off, the captain called her inside; she was accompanied by Amit Khanna (cabin crew). Captain Ranbir Arora used abusive language against her; the co-pilot Aditya Chopra also got up from his seat and tried to hit Amit; to calm the situation, the complainant and Amit walked out. On this Captain Ranbir Arora pushed the complainant on her chest and again used abusive language; her arm got bruised.

3. Arguments have been addressed.

4. As per the version of the petitioner Ranbir Arora, the FIR had been registered on a complaint dated 03.10.2009 made at 01:30 pm; the first complaint was lodged by the victim in the log book which she had made between 07:30-08:00 am which did not reflect the contents of the complaint. This FIR is belated and an improved version. The version of the complainant is even otherwise contradictory. Cabin staff Amit Khanna had given a contrary version in his statement under Section 161 of the Cr. PC on the role attributable to the petitioners; in one breath, he had named the present petitioner but on an earlier occasion, he had named the co-pilot. Such contrary versions being unexplained dent the version of the prosecution and this is a fit case where the FIR should be quashed at the initial state itself as trial would serve no purpose and it would be an exercise in futility. To support this proposition reliance has been placed upon 2008 (2) JCC 1017 Budhan Singh & Ors. v. State; submission being that where the statements made by the persons about the incident at an earlier point of time did not reveal the involvement of the petitioner, the FIR lodged later in time was clearly held to be motivated and was thus liable to be quashed. The second argument professed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Ranbir Arora has been exonerated in the enquiry conducted by Vishaka Committee (constituted after the judgment of the Apex Court reported as AIR 1997 SC 3011 Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others). The National Commission for Women had also exonerated the petitioner and so also the Departmental Enquiry. In such an eventuality where the issue involved in the Departmental Enquiry and in the FIR is the same, the FIR cannot be permitted to be proceeded with. To support this submission reliance has been placed upon (2011) 3 SCC 581 Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal and Another. The last submission is qua the provisions of Section 188 of the Cr. PC; submission being that the offence was committed in air-space and in the absence of mandatory sanction from the Central Government, cognizance of the offence and the order issuing summons to the petitioner could not have been passed. To support this submission, attention has been drawn to the aforenoted statutory provisions.

5. On behalf of the petitioner Aditya Chopa, the same arguments have been pressed. In addition, it is stated that there is no specific role attributed to Aditya Chopra and for this proposition attention has been drawn to the statement of Amit Khanna, the cabin crew member. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court 2005 (3) JCC 17