It is absolutely in the fitness of things that while pitching most strongly for not blindly believing everything what is mentioned in FIR, the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Manjunath @ Manjunath Bhajantri vs The State of Jharkhand & Ors in W.P.(Cr.) No. 571 of 2022 that was pronounced as recently as on 12.08.2024 quashed an FIR that had been registered by MP Nishikant Dubey while holding most categorically that an FIR can be quashed if the allegations made in the complaint are found “absurd and inherently improbable”. While taking the right step in the right direction, the Jharkhand High Court took specific note of the “counter blast” between the Deputy Commissioner (petitioner) and the MP Nishikant Dubey which is definitely a clear pointer to the irrefutable fact that maliciously the present case has been registered at New Delhi in the form of Zero FIR. It is perfectly in order that the Jharkhand High Court reiterated that a Court is required to read things “in between the lines” as was held by the Apex Court in Haji Iqbal @ Bala v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “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.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench while delving on the facts of the case envisages in para 3 that, “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.”
As we see, the Bench mentions in para 3 that, “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.”
Briefly stated, the Bench discloses in para 4 that, “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 was not registered on that Section in Kunda P.S. He further draws the attention of the court towards Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and submits that unless it is alleged that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as public servant, no case under that Section is made out. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Manik Taneja & Anr. Versus State of Karnataka & Anr., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423 and he made stress on para-10 of the said judgment, which reads as under:-
“10. So far as the issue regarding the registration of FIR under Section 353 IPC is concerned, it has to be seen whether by posting a comment on the Facebook of the traffic police, the conviction under that Section could be maintainable.””
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 18 that, “In view of the above submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, court has gone through the materials on record and finds that there are case and counter case by the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 and the respondent No. 4, happened to be the sitting Member of Parliament. The case registered by the Deoghar Police, being Kunda P.S. Case No. 169 of 2022, by the petitioner has already been quashed by this court in W.P. (Cr.) No. 448 of 2022 along with its analogous cases by order dated 13.03.2023. For the same occurrence, the present case has been lodged by the respondent No. 4 as a Zero FIR at New Delhi and subsequently, the said Zero FIR was transferred to the district of Deoghar, which was registered as Kunda P.S. Case No. 134 of 2023. Looking into the contents of the FIR, it is crystal clear that this petitioner was not present on the spot/at airport. In the FIR itself it has been admitted that the respondent No. 4 has proceeded to the office of Airport Directorate and allegations are made on the instigation of the petitioner, who was the then Deputy Commissioner of Deoghar District, the Jharkhand Police has tried to stop the respondent No. 4, the informant. Thus, from the contents of the FIR, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was not present at the spot.”
As it turned out, the Bench crucially enunciates in para 20 observing that, “So far Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, that Section can only be attracted if the allegations were there that the petitioner has assaulted the public servant of used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as public duty. Admittedly, the respondent No. 4 was not on official duty and petitioner was not present at the spot, in view of this, the criminal force was not utilized by this petitioner, as such, the case of the petitioner is fully covered in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manik Taneja & Anr. Versus State of Karnataka & Anr., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 22 that, “For attracting Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, the ingredients of Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code is required to be there and that must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person, then only that Section can be attracted. In the case in hand, such allegations are not there, as such, the case of the petitioner is further covered in light of paras-11 and 12 of the judgment in the case of Manik Taneja & Anr. (supra).”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 24 that, “Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code speaks of causing the disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen the offender, however, in the case in hand, as the petitioner has not tried to disappear any of the evidence, as such, no case is made out under that section.”
It cannot be lost on us that the Bench points out in para 26 that, “For making out of a case under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, the ingredients of Section 442 of the Indian Penal Code is required to be there, which is also lacking in the case in hand, as the petitioner was admittedly not present at the spot/airport, how a person not present at the place of occurrence, can be charged of house trespass. In view of Section 442 of the IPC, the ingredients of that section is not made out.”
It would be worthwhile to mention that the Bench specifies in para 27 stating that, “Section 7 of the Official Secrets Act speaks of:-
“7. Interfering with officers of the police or members of the Armed Forces of the Union.—
(1) No person in the vicinity of any prohibited place shall obstruct, knowingly mislead or otherwise interfere with or impede, any police officer, or any member of the Armed Forces of the Union engaged on guard, sentry, patrol or other similar duty in relation to the prohibited place.
(2) If any person acts in contravention of the provisions of this section, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.””
Quite naturally, the Bench hastens to add in para 28 stating that, “Looking into the above Section, it transpires that it can only be attracted when person in the vicinity of any prohibited place shall obstruct, knowingly mislead or otherwise interfere with or impede, any police officer, or any member of the Armed Forces of the Union engaged on guard, sentry, patrol or other similar duty in relation to the prohibited place. In the present case, the petitioner was not present at the spot/airport.”
Quite significantly, the Bench points out in para 32 that, “Coming to the facts of the present case and what has been discussed hereinabove, it is a case and a counter blast between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4. The case registered by the Deoghar Police, being Kunda P.S. Case No. 169 of 2022, which was registered on 02.09.2022 has already been quashed by this court in W.P.(Cr.) No. 448 of 2022 and its analogous cases and subsequently, the Zero FIR was registered at New Delhi on 03.09.2022, thereafter it was transferred to Deoghar, pursuant thereto Kunda P.S. Case No. 134 of 2023 was registered, which clearly suggests that maliciously the present case has been registered at New Delhi.”
Most significantly and most robustly, the Bench propounds in para 33 that, “There are parameters of quashing of the FIR, however, on the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, it is found that it is absurd and inherently improbable, the court can exercise its power. Reference may be made to the case of case of M.N. Ojha & Ors. Versus Alok Kumar Srivastav & Anr., reported in (2009) 9 SCC 682, where in para-30, it has been held as under:-
“30. Interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can only be where a clear case for such interference is made out. Frequent and uncalled for interference even at the preliminary stage by the High Court may result in causing obstruction in progress of the inquiry in a criminal case which may not be in the public interest. But at the same time the High Court cannot refuse to exercise its jurisdiction if the interest of justice so required where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no fair-minded and informed observer can ever reach a just and proper conclusion as to the existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding. In such cases refusal to exercise the jurisdiction may equally result in injustice more particularly in cases where the Complainant sets the criminal law in motion with a view to exert pressure and harass the persons arrayed as accused in the complaint.””
Most forthrightly and most remarkably, the Bench mandates in para 34 postulating that, “In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the court comes to a conclusion that if such type of case has been brought to the knowledge of the High Court, the High Court is having more responsibility to examine the things and for that the court is required to read the things in between the lines, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Haji Iqbal @ Bala through SPOA Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2023) SCC Online (SC) 946.”
As a corollary, the Bench then holds in para 35 that, “Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings, in connection with Kunda P.S. Case No. 134 of 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar, is hereby quashed.”
Finally, we see that the Bench then concludes by directing in para 36 that, “This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.”
In conclusion, this most commendable judgment by the Jharkhand High Court written most meticulously very rightly holds that FIR can be quashed if it is absurd and inherently improbable. It is also very rightly called upon by the Ranchi High Court that the court is required to read in between the lines and cited the relevant Apex Court ruling as stated hereinabove. No denying!
Author Bio
