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
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
Manik Taneja & Anr. Versus State of Karnataka & Anr.
Union of India & Ors. Versus B.R. Bajaj & Ors.
Hemraj & Anr. Versus State of Punjab
Superintendent of Police, CBI & Ors. Versus Tapan Kumar Singh
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....
FIR not quashable where allegations of blocking judicial officer's residence and demanding bail prima facie show criminal trespass intent to intimidate; no mini-trial, accept FIR as true, especially ....
The court established that for offences under Section 188 IPC, a written complaint from the concerned public servant is mandatory, and without it, the FIRs cannot be maintained. Furthermore, the cour....
The High Court reaffirmed the stringent standard for quashing FIRs, emphasizing that allegations must disclose a cognizable offence and be supported by prima facie evidence.
An FIR can be quashed if it does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, requiring sufficient evidence to sustain allegations of forgery and intimidation.
Courts may quash FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if the allegations do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the alleged offences; jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly.
The Court emphasized that the determination of the truthfulness of allegations and sufficiency of evidence is within the domain of the trial court, and the exercise of inherent power to quash the FIR....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.