No Case Is Made Out: SC Rejects State’s Plea Challenging Quashing Of FIR Against MPs Nishikant Dubey & Manoj Tiwari
The MPs were accused of barging into the Air Traffic Control room at the Airport to create pressure on the officials to grant take-off clearance for a chartered flight.
The Supreme Court dismissed an Appeal filed by the State challenging the Jharkhand High Court's decision to quash an FIR against Members of Parliament (MP) Nishikant Dubey and Manoj Tiwari.
The Court upheld the Jharkhand High Court’s decision of quashing the FIR against the Respondents who were accused of barging into the Air Traffic Control (ATC) room at Deoghar Airport and creating pressure on the officials to grant take-off clearance for a chartered flight. The FIR was registered under Sections 336, 447, and 448 of the IPC and Sections 10 and 11A of the Aircraft Act, 1934 (the Act).
A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Manmohan remarked that “the Aircraft Act, 1934 as well as the Rules framed thereunder [including Rule 14(ix) of Airport (Security) Rules, 2011] is a complete Code which deals with safety and security of civil aviation and aerodrome. The Aircraft Act, 1934 also prescribes a special procedure for taking cognizance of any offence punishable under the Aircraft Act, 1934 i.e, the complaint must be made by or with the prior sanction of the Aviation authorities. Section 12B is in the nature of a pre-condition for taking cognizance by a Court.”
Senior Advocate Arunabh Choudhury represented the Appellant, while AOR Ankit Yadav appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The High Court held that the FIR was lodged malafidely, therefore, allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to the abuse of the process of law.
The Respondents argued that the routine meeting between them and the officials was falsely represented by the State of Jharkhand as a forcible trespass of the ATC room at the Deoghar Airport. They further contended that the FIR was premised on completely incorrect facts.
Court’s Observations
In order to attract Section 336 of the IPC, the Supreme Court explained that the prosecution must allege that “the accused did the act in question; that it was done rashly or negligently and that it was such as to endanger the life or personal safety of others.”
“In the present case, the Respondents-accused persons were only asking the ATC to grant permission for take-off. This Court is of the view that the action of the pilot and the passengers talking to ATC officials in the present case cannot be construed as creating undue or illegal pressure on ATC officials. Moreover, as the aircraft carrying the Respondents-accused persons had taken off after obtaining ATC permission, it cannot be said that the Respondents-accused persons acted rashly or negligently so as to endanger human lives. Consequently, Section 336 IPC is not attracted to the present case,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held that “as a complaint can be made/filed by an authorised officer alone under the Special Act i.e. the Aircrafts Act, 1934, before the concerned Court, the local police can only forward the material collected by it during the investigation to such authorised officer. It shall be open to the authorised officer to take a decision in accordance with law with regard to filing or non-filing of a complaint.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: State Of Jharkhand v. Nishkant Dubey & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 94)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Arunabh Choudhury; Advocates Pragya Baghel, Meenakshi Chatterjee and Adyashree Dutta; AOR Jayant Mohan
Respondents: AOR Ankit Yadav and Punit Vinay; Advocate Shaoni Das
