SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 922

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Manjunath @ Manjunath Bhajantri, son of Hanamantappa Bhajantri - Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P.(Cr.) No. 571 of 2022
Decided On : 12-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Md. Asghar, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II.
For the Union of India : Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel
For the Respondent:Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate.

The court quashed the FIR due to lack of evidence against the petitioner, emphasizing that mere allegations without presence or intent do not constitute a valid case under the IPC or Official Secrets Act.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 353, 448, 201, 506, 124-A - Official Secrets Act, 1923 - Quashing of Zero FIR - Allegations of criminal intimidation and obstruction against Deputy Commissioner - Court found no evidence of presence or intent to obstruct public servant - Previous FIR quashed, indicating malicious prosecution. (Paras 4, 10, 18, 32, 35)

(B) Quashing of FIR - High Court's power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - FIR can be quashed if allegations are absurd or inherently improbable - Court must exercise caution and not interfere prematurely. (Paras 30, 34)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former Deputy Commissioner, challenged a Zero FIR alleging obstruction and intimidation by police against an informant, a Member of Parliament, during an airport incident. The FIR was registered after a previous case against the informant was quashed.

Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence supporting the allegations against the petitioner, emphasizing that he was not present at the scene and that the FIR was maliciously lodged.

Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations in the FIR constituted a valid case under the cited sections and whether the FIR should be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of the petitioner at the scene and lack of intent to obstruct public duty negated the charges, affirming the need for clear evidence in criminal proceedings.

Result: The entire criminal proceedings in connection with Kunda P.S. Case No. 134 of 2023 are quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Md. Asghar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State, Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the Union of India and Mr. Amit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the informant-respondent No. 4.

2. Initially this writ petition was filed for quashing of the Zero FIR dated 03.09.2022 registered with North Avenue Police Station, New Delhi. Subsequently, the said FIR was transferred to Kunda Police Station in the district of Deoghar, which was registered as Kunda P.S. Case No. 134 of 2023, which was challenged by way of I.A. No. 7321 of 2023 and after hearing the parties, the said I.A. was allowed by order dated 16.08.2023, as such, the Kunda P.S. Case No. 134 of 2023 is also under challenge.

3. Pursuant to the above, Kunda P.S. Case No. 134 of 2023 has been registered alleging therein that the informant namely Dr. Nishikant Dubey, is Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) and also Chairman of Advisory Committee, Deoghar Airport. On 31.08.2022 at about 5:15 p.m. the informant went to the Deoghar Airport to take flight for Delhi Airport, and where he was accompanied by Manoj Tiwary, MLA and also member, Airport Authority of India. Due to non-availability of night landing facility at Deoghar, the flights are getting interrupted, and one matter is sub judice before the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in this regard. The matter was to be heard by the Hon'ble High Court in the month of August, 2022, and, therefore, the informant on consultation decided to meet Director of Airport to discuss / enquire about the case. Due to paucity of time, the petitioner decided to walk bare foot and while he was on his way, the officers of Jharkhand Police stopped the informant and abuses the son of the informant who were bringing slippers for the informant and Jharkhand Police has also threatened to kill him. The informant received information that the officers of Jharkhand Police interrupted the work of the informant upon the orders of the Deputy Collector, Deoghar. This fact was disclosed on the next day when they, without any permission, entered into the restricted area of DRDO at Deoghar, Airport, the permission of which could only be given by the office of Hon'ble the Prime Minister. The Director of Airport tried to make them understand, however, they showed their influence. Interruption in my work, entering into the area of DRDO, showing influence to the Director of Airport, compromising the security of the nation by the Deputy Collector of Deoghar, criminal trespass and conspiracy to kill the informant, appropriate case may be registered. On such information a zero First Information Report was registered and sent to SHO, P.S. Kunda through SSP, Deoghar, Jharkhand for further necessary Investigation.

3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the alleged occurrence has said to be occurred on 31.08.2022 and for the act of the respondent No. 4, this petitioner who happened to be the Deputy Commissioner of Deoghar at that relevant time, has directed to register the FIR, which was registered as Kunda P.S. Case No. 169 of 2022. He submits that the said Kunda P.S. Case No. 169 of 2022 was challenged before this court in W.P. (Cr.) No. 448 of 2022 along with its analogous cases and the said FIR was already quashed by this court by order dated 13.03.2023. He further submits that thereafter the Zero FIR was registered by the respondent No. 4 at Delhi, which was subsequently transferred to the Kunda P.S. Deoghar, which was registered as Kunda P.S. Case No. 134 of 2023.

4. By way of drawing the attention of this court to the contents of the FIR, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said case is registered under Section 353, 448, 201, 506 and 124-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Official Secret Act, 1923. He submits that so far as Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the case

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top