Mens Rea Cannot Be Mechanically Attributed To Inanimate Objects: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Drone Research Company
The Court noted that in absence of an intentional human entry or rashness nullifies criminal trespass and endangerment charges under BNS.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court noting that the criminal jurisprudence remains firmly rooted in the bedrock of mens rea, has held that the mechanical landing of a drone into a neighbouring property due to a technical failure, cannot be transformed into a criminal offence. The Court while quashing an FIR against the Drone Company, said that the investigative agencies cannot speculatively attribute the ingredients of a crime, such as intentional trespass or rash and negligent acts, to an inanimate object without evidence of culpable human intervention.
The Court observed that the registration of a suo motu FIR for "slight or negligible harm" contradicts the doctrine of triviality. It further warned that withholding FIR copies from accused persons by merely citing online availability is a violation of transparency mandates, directing that such lapses could invite departmental enquiries against erring police officers.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna noting the provision under Section 329 BNS observed, “…The sine qua non of the provision is the existence of mens rea. The FIR, however, is conspicuously devoid of any allegation of intentional human entry or any discernible ingredient of the statute. The recovery is of a drone. Mere recovery of a drone, without anything more, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, satisfy the ingredients of the offence. Therefore, Section 329 of the BNS is loosely laid against the petitioner”.
Advocate Angad Kamath appeared for the petitioner and B.N. Jagadeesha, Additional SPP, appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, M/s NewSpace Research and Technologies Private Limited, is a DGCA-authorized aerospace company engaged in drone testing within a designated ‘green zone’ at Doddaballapura.
On January 29, 2026, a 7-kilogram prototype drone suffered a battery malfunction during routine R&D, causing it to glide beyond the leased boundary and land in a neighboring property. A police constable, acting on a 112-helpline tip, recovered the drone and filed a suo motu complaint.
Following the recovery, the Doddaballapura Rural Police registered an FIR against "unknown persons" for criminal trespass and endangering life. When the petitioner company identified itself as the owner and requested a copy of the FIR, the police refused, demanding the physical presence of the Managing Director first. Aggrieved by the registration of the crime and the denial of the FIR copy, the petitioner moved the High Court seeking quashment.
The Court focusing on the statutory requirements of Sections 125 and 329(3) of the BNS, noted that Section 329 requires entry with intent to intimidate or annoy, whereas the FIR was "conspicuously devoid" of any allegation of intentional human entry. Similarly, Section 125 BNS requires a rash or negligent human act endangering safety, which cannot be met by the mere recovery of an inanimate object.
The Court applied the doctrine of triviality under Section 33 BNS (corresponding to Section 95 of the IPC), stating that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such a negligible event.
“Criminal jurisprudence, as it stands, continues to rest upon the bedrock of mens rea and criminal justice system cannot be invoked on the basis of speculative or mechanical attribution of the ingredients of the crime – rash and negligent human act to an inanimate object. Therefore, the Police cannot convert a mechanical event into an offence involving mens rea, by a bald assertion in the complaint. Therefore, ingredients of both the offences are conspicuously absent in the case at hand”, the Bench noted.
On the mandate that an accused is entitled to obtain a copy of the FIR without undue delay, the Bench noted, “…all Police Stations scrupulously adhere to the mandate of furnishing the copy of the FIR or if it is online, furnishing complete details of the FIR. Any deviation in this regard by the Police Stations would be viewed seriously and those Station House Officers or the Officers in-charge of the Police Station who would not follow this, would become open to initiation of departmental enquiry against those erring officers”.
Cause Title: M/s New Space Research and Technologies Private Limited v. The State of Karnataka [Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:11506]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Angad Kamath, Advocate.
Respondent: B.N. Jagadeesha, Additional SPP.