STATE OF JHARKHANDversusDR. NISHKANT DUBEY & ORS.

                 [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1909 : 2025 INSC 94

                           State of Jharkhand
                                    v.
                       Dr. Nishkant Dubey & Ors.
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 5475 of 2024)
                               21 January 2025
                [Abhay S. Oka and Manmohan,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       What are the essential conditions that must be satisfied to attract
       the provisions of Section 366 of the IPC?
       What are the essentials to constitute a trespass as criminal
       trespass?
       Whether the procedure provided under the general law will be
       attracted if the special law provides for a special procedure?

                                  Headnotes†
       Respondents boarded a chartered plane to travel from Deoghar
       Airport – Air Traffic Controller denied the permission for
       take-off – Pilot along with other respondents barged into the
       room of ATC and exerted pressure – ATC clearance was given
       and Chartered flight took off at 18:17 hours – F.I.R was lodged
       against respondents – High court quashed the F.I.R being
       abuse of process of law – Appellant filed appeals challenging
       the Judgement – Supreme Court dismissed appeals with liberty
       to appellant. [Paras 1, 2 and 42]

       Penal Code, 1860 – Section 336 – To attract the provision, it
       must be alleged that the accused has done the act in question
       rashly and negligently and it was such as to endanger the life
       and liberty or personal safety of the others:
       Held: Section 336 IPC seeks to punish a person who does an
       act rashly or negligently and endangers human life or personal
       safety of others – To attract Section 336 IPC, 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



* Author
1910                                                           [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    or personal safety of others – In the facts of 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. [Paras 33 and 34]

    Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 441, 447 and 448 – Every trespass
    is not itself criminal – To constitute an offence of criminal
    trespass prosecution has to allege that the trespass was
    committed with one of the intents enumerated in Section 441
    IPC – No allegation of forcible entry or intimidation or insult
    or annoyance has been made by any official of ATC:
    Held: It is settled law that every trespass by itself is not criminal –
    To constitute criminal trespass, the prosecution has to allege that
    the trespass was committed with one of the intents enumerated
    in Section 441 IPC – Accordingly, the prosecution has to prove
    that the complainant had possession of the property in question
    and that the accused entered into or upon the property; or after
    having lawfully entered unlawfully remained there with the intention
    (a) to commit an offence; or (b) to intimidate, insult, or annoy the
    person in possession – In the absence of any such allegation, the
    offence under Section 441/447 IPC cannot be sustained. [Para 35]
    In the present case, no allegation of forcible entry or intimidation
    or insult or annoyance has been made by any official of ATC – On
    the contrary, the Director of Deogarh Airport has been arrayed as
    an accused in the FIR – Consequently, Section 447 IPC is not
    attracted to the present case – Also, as the ATC office is not a
    place used as a human dwelling or a place of worship or a place
    for the custody of goods, the ingredients of Section 448 IPC are
    not attracted to the present case. [Paras 36, 37]

    The Aircraft Act, 1934 – Any special law having special
    jurisdiction, power or procedure shall prevail over general
    law – The Aircraft Act, 1934 and the rules framed thereunder
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                               1911

            State of Jharkhand v. Dr. Nishkant Dubey & Ors.


     constitute a complete code and its Section 12B is in the nature
     of a pre-condition for taking cognizance by a court, the local
     police can only forward the material collected by it to such
     authorised officer:
     Held: The Aircraft Act, 1934 as well as the Rules framed thereunder
     [including Rule 14(ix) of Airport (Security) Rules, 2011] are 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 –
     Clause (2) of Section 4 and Section 5 of the Code provide that
     special form of procedure would prevail – Consequently, 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. [Paras 39-41]

                               Case Law Cited
     Navi Mumbai Environment Preservation Society and Anr. v.
     Ministry of Environment, Division Bench of Bombay High Court,
     PIL No.218/2013 dated 22nd December, 2016; State (NCT) of
     Delhi v. Sanjay [2014] 9 SCR 1063 : (2014) 9 SCC 772; Jayant
     & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2020] 11 SCR 665 : (2021)
     2 SCC 670 – referred to.
     State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1990] Supp. 3 SCR
     259 : (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 – followed.

                                 List of Acts
     Penal Code,1860; Aircraft Act, 1934; Constitution of India, 1950;
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Aircraft Rules, 1937; Airport
     (Security) Rules, 2011.

                              List of Keywords
     Quashing of FIR; Air Traffic Control; First Information Report; Special
     Law, Local Law; Trespass, Civil Aviation; Aerodrome; Investigation;
     Cognizance; Complaint.
1912                                                         [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


                             Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     5475 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2023 of the High Court
     of Jharkhand at Ranchi in WPCRL No. 448 of 2022
     With
     Criminal Appeal No(s). 5476 and 5477 of 2024

                          Appearances for Parties
     Arunabh Chowdhury, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pragya Baghel, Jayant Mohan,
     Karma Dorjee, Dechen Wangadi Lachungpa, Ms. Adya Shree
     Dutta, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Maninder Singh, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Advs., Ankit Yadav,
     Ms. Shaoni Das, Rishi K Awasthi, Mahesh Agarwala, Anshuman
     Srivastava, Victor Das, Shashwat Singh, Shivani Agrawal, Punit
     Yadav, Piyush Vatsa, Amit Vikram Awasthi, Abhinav Sharma, Punit
     Vinay, Advs. for the Respondents.

                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

     Manmohan, J.

1.   Present appeals have been filed challenging the judgment and order
     dated 13th March, 2023 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at
     Ranchi allowing the writ petitions filed by the Respondents herein and
     quashing the First Information Report (‘FIR’) being Deoghar Kunda
     P.S. Case No.169 of 2022 registered against the Respondents-
     accused persons for commission of alleged offences under Sections
     336, 447 and 448 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections
     10 and 11A of the Aircraft Act, 1934 holding that the FIR is vitiated by
     mala fides and allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to
     abuse of law. The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi while quashing
     the FIR has held as under:-
            “26. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis and
            considering that Aircraft took off after permission of the
            ATC, Aircraft Act, 1934 is itself complete code and there are
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                          1913

            State of Jharkhand v. Dr. Nishkant Dubey & Ors.


           procedure prescribed therein to lodge the complaint and of
           the enquiry, in view of the Act, the competent authority has
           not complained anything, even Airport Director has been
           made accused and even the two sons of the petitioner
           no. 1 has not been spared and considering that when the
           Special Act is there, Sections of Indian Penal Code are
           not attracted, petitioner no.1 and 4 in W.P.(Cr.) No. 448
           of 2022 are Member of Parliament and petitioner no.1 is
           Chairman of the Airport Advisory Committee of Deoghar
           Airport and petitioner no.4 is also a member of the Standing
           Committee, Civil Aviation, further considering the materials
           on record which suggests that several cases have been
           lodged against the petitioner no.1 in W.P.(Cr.) No. 448 of
           2022 which have been quashed by this Court and some
           judgments are affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
           it transpires that F.I.R. has been lodged malafidely and
           allowing to continue the proceeding will amount the abuse
           of process of law, accordingly, the F.I.R. bearing Deoghar
           Kunda P.S. Case No. 169 of 2022 including the entire
           criminal proceeding registered under sections 336, 447
           and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and section 10 and 11A
           of the Airport Act, 1934, pending in the Court of learned
           Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dumka, is hereby quashed.”

     FACTS
2.   The facts, as mentioned in the FIR, are that on 31st August, 2022 at
     17:25 hours, the Respondents-accused persons boarded a chartered
     plane to travel from Deoghar Airport. After some time, the door of
     the plane opened and the pilot came down and moved towards
     the Air Traffic Control (‘ATC’) room as the Air Traffic Controller had
     denied permission for take-off. Learned counsel for Appellant-State
     of Jharkhand stated that the first informant who was Security-in-
     charge in Deoghar Airport followed the pilot and when he entered
     the ATC room, he saw that the pilot was creating pressure for giving
     Respondents-accused persons clearance for take-off at the earliest.
     Thereafter, the other Respondents-accused persons also barged into
     the ATC room and created pressure for the clearance to be given
     to them. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant-State of
     Jharkhand, pursuant to the pressure exerted by the Respondents-
1914                                                       [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     accused persons, the ATC clearance was given and the chartered
     flight took-off at 18:17 hours even when the sunset time on that day
     was 18:03 hours.

     ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT-STATE OF JHARKHAND
3.   Learned counsel for the Appellant-State of Jharkhand stated that the
     ATC room is a restricted area and the Respondents-accused persons
     forcefully trespassed and entered the ATC room which was a serious
     security breach and the Respondents-accused persons threatened
     the ATC officers and coerced them to give permission for take-off.
     He stated that the ATC had denied clearance/permission to chartered
     flight to take-off from Deoghar Airport due to low visibility and bad
     weather conditions. He pointed out that the Deoghar Airport does
     not have the facility of night operation. He stated that by forcefully
     obtaining the ATC clearance by threatening and creating pressure on
     the ATC officers, the chartered flight with the Respondents-accused
     persons on board, took-off at 18:17 hours i.e., after sunset.
4.   He submitted that there was a clear violation of Rule 14(ix) of
     Airport (Security) Rules, 2011 which empowers the Security Officer
     to supervise the movement of persons in the restricted areas. He
     contended that the said Rules of 2011 have been promulgated
     in exercise of powers under Section 4 read with Section 5 of the
     Aircraft Act, 1934. Section 5(2)(gc) of the Aircraft Act, 1934 permits
     the Central Government to make rules to provide for “the measures
     to safeguard civil aviation against acts of unlawful interference”.
5.   He submitted that the High Court of Jharkhand failed to appreciate that
     the bar under Section 12B of the Aircraft Act, 1934 will get triggered
     and come into play only after the investigation is complete and the
     result of investigation in the form of the Final Report/Chargesheet
     is filed before the competent Court. According to him, Section 12B
     does not bar the police from registering an FIR and consequently
     conducting investigation arising out of the FIR.
6.   He pointed out that in the context of prosecution under the
     Environment Protection Act, 1986 which, by virtue of Section 19,
     mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under
     this Act except on complaint made by the officers specified therein,
     the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Navi Mumbai
     Environment Preservation Society and Anr. vs. Ministry of
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                           1915

            State of Jharkhand v. Dr. Nishkant Dubey & Ors.


     Environment (PIL No.218/2013) dated 22nd December, 2016
     has after considering the judgment of this Court in State (NCT) of
     Delhi vs. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772 held that the offence under
     Section 15(1) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 is a cognizable
     offence and therefore, the police can register the FIR under Section
     154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Code’).
     The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (speaking through
     one of us Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Oka as his Lordship then was)
     held, “Therefore, if FIR is registered by the Police for the offence
     punishable under Section 15 of the Act of 1956, the registration
     of offence and investigation carried out by the police is not per se
     vitiated. A complaint can be made/filed by authorized officer under
     Clause (a) of Section 19 before the concerned Court. While filing a
     complaint, the authorized officer can always rely upon the material
     collected by the police during the investigation. The Complaint can
     include the material collected by the police during the investigation
     carried out on the basis of the FIR.” He pointed out that the High
     Court of Bombay in the said case, inter alia, issued the following
     interim direction at para 15(iii):-
           “(III) We clarify that registration of offences by the Police
           under Sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the said Act of
           1986 and the investigation carried out thereon is not
           per se illegal. The officers authorized under clause (a)
           of Section 19 can always file complaints in accordance
           with the said Code by relying upon the material collected
           during the investigation and material forming part of the
           charge sheet prepared by the Police.”
7.   He further submitted that the finding of the High Court of Jharkhand
     in the impugned judgment that the Aircraft Act, 1934 is a Special
     Act and a complete Code in itself and therefore, IPC offences are
     not attracted, is erroneous and is in the teeth of the law laid down
     by this Court in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sanjay (supra) and in
     Jayant & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 2 SCC 670.
     The relevant portion of the judgment relied upon in State (NCT of
     Delhi) Vs. Sanjay (supra) is reproduced herein below:-
           “69. Considering the principles of interpretation and the
           wordings used in Section 22, in our considered opinion,
           the provision is not a complete and absolute bar for taking
1916                                                     [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


        action by the police for illegal and dishonestly committing
        theft of minerals including sand from the riverbed….

           xxx            xxx             xxx             xxx
        72. From a close reading of the provisions of the MMDR
        Act and the offence defined under Section 378 IPC, it is
        manifest that the ingredients constituting the offence are
        different. The contravention of terms and conditions of
        mining lease or doing mining activity in violation of Section
        4 of the Act is an offence punishable under Section 21
        of the MMDR Act, whereas dishonestly removing sand,
        gravel and other minerals from the river, which is the
        property of the State, out of the State’s possession without
        the consent, constitute an offence of theft. Hence, merely
        because initiation of proceeding for commission of an
        offence under the MMDR Act on the basis of complaint
        cannot and shall not debar the police from taking action
        against persons for committing theft of sand and minerals
        in the manner mentioned above by exercising power
        under the Code of Criminal Procedure and submit a report
        before the Magistrate for taking cognizance against such
        persons. In other words, in a case where there is a theft
        of sand and gravel from the government land, the police
        can register a case, investigate the same and submit a
        final report under Section 173 CrPC before a Magistrate
        having jurisdiction for the purpose of taking cognizance
        as provided in Section 190(1)(d) of the Code of Criminal
        Procedure.
        73. After giving our thoughtful consideration in the matter,
        in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act vis-à-vis
        the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Penal Code, we
        are of the definite opinion that the ingredients constituting
        the offence under the MMDR Act and the ingredients of
        dishonestly removing sand and gravel from the riverbeds
        without consent, which is the property of the State, is a
        distinct offence under IPC. Hence, for the commission
        of offence under Section 378 IPC, on receipt of the
        police report, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take
        cognizance of the said offence without awaiting the receipt
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                              1917

              State of Jharkhand v. Dr. Nishkant Dubey & Ors.


             of complaint that may be filed by the authorised officer
             for taking cognizance in respect of violation of various
             provisions of the MMDR Act. Consequently, the contrary
             view taken by the different High Courts cannot be sustained
             in law and, therefore, overruled. Consequently, these
             criminal appeals are disposed of with a direction to the
             Magistrates concerned to proceed accordingly.”
8.   He also submitted that in the impugned judgment, the High Court of
     Jharkhand erroneously adjudicated upon disputed questions of facts
     even when the investigation was at a nascent stage.
9.   He lastly submitted that the High Court of Jharkhand had conducted
     a mini trial while deciding the writ petition under Article 226 of the
     Constitution of India.

     ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS-ACCUSED
10. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the Respondents-accused
    persons stated that the Respondent No.1 is a sitting and three-
    time Member of Parliament and Chairman of the Airport Advisory
    Committee, Deoghar Airport. He stated that Respondent No.1 was
    accompanied amongst others by Respondent No.4 (also a sitting
    Member of Parliament and a Member of Standing Committee, Civil
    Aviation) when his flight landed from New Delhi at Deoghar Airport.
    He stated that in his capacity as Chairman of the Airport Advisory
    Committee, Respondent No.1 disembarked from the aircraft, met
    the Director of the Deoghar Airport and reviewed the functioning of
    the airport and operational issues like night landing.
11. He contended that this routine meeting has been falsely represented
    by the Appellant-State of Jharkhand as a forcible trespass of the ATC
    room at the Deoghar Airport. He further contended that the FIR was
    premised on completely incorrect facts, was illegal and mala fide for
    the following reasons:

      S.NO.            REASON                         PARTICULARS
        1.      Alleged offence governed   Procedure under Section 12B of the
                by the provisions of       Aircraft Act, 1934 – Precondition of
                Section 12B of the         complaint to be made by/with sanction
                Aircraft Act.              of the relevant Aviation Authorities has
                                           been completely bypassed.
1918                                                              [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports



        2.      FIR premised on an The basis of the FIR was that the
                incorrect legal basis. Aircraft could be operated only till 17:30
                                       hrs. This position is legally flawed and
                                       completely incorrect.
                                          Rule 4 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 clearly
                                          defines flight by night as, inter alia, a
                                          flight performed between the period of
                                          half an hour after sunset. As per FIR,
                                          on the day of alleged incident, i.e.,
                                          31st August, 2022, the sunset was at
                                          18:03 hours.
                                          As per the Petitioner’s own affidavit
                                          before the High Court (para 6 at page
                                          128 of SLP), the flight took off at 18:17
                                          hours after the clearance from Kolkata
                                          ATC.
                                          Therefore, the flight take-off, being
                                          within the period of half an hour after
                                          sunset, was legal and proper.
        3.      Allegation in FIR of      The clearance for take-off was given by
                forcible entry into the   the ATC, Kolkata. The ATC at Deoghar
                ATC Room, Deoghar         Airport neither had the authority nor
                Airport and pressure      the control to grant take-off clearance.
                exerted to obtain ATC     There is no allegation that the answering
                clearance.                Respondent tried to influence take-off
                                          clearance from the ATC-Kolkata.

12. Learned senior counsel for the Respondents-accused persons
    submitted that the provisions of the Aircraft Act, 1934 being special
    law shall prevail over the Code being the general law. He pointed out
    that Entry 29 of the List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution
    of India states as follows:-
             “29. Airways; aircraft and air navigation; provision of
             aerodromes; regulation and organization of air traffic and
             aerodromes; provision for aeronautical education and
             training and regulation of such education and training
             provided by States and other agencies.”
13. He pointed out that Section 4A of the Aircraft Act, 1934 prescribes for
    the constitution of a body to be known as the “Directorate General
    of Civil Aviation”. Under sub-Section (2) thereof, it is provided that:
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                             1919

             State of Jharkhand v. Dr. Nishkant Dubey & Ors.


            “(2) The Directorate General of Civil Aviation shall be
            responsible for carrying out the safety oversight of
            regulatory functions in respect of matters specified in this
            Act or the rules made thereunder.”
14. Similarly, under Section 4B of the Aircraft Act, 1934 a “Bureau of
    Civil Aviation Security” has been constituted. Under sub-section (2)
    thereof, it is stated that:
            “(2) The Bureau of Civil Aviation Security shall be
            responsible for carrying out the regulatory and oversight
            functions in respect of matter relating to civil aviation
            security specified in this Act or the rules made thereunder.”
15. He stated that under Section 4C of the Aircraft Act, 1934, a provision
    has been made for constituting a body named as “Aircraft Accidents
    Investigation Bureau”. Under sub-Section (2) thereof, it is provided
    that:
            “(2) The Aircraft Accidents Investigation Bureau shall be
            responsible for carrying out the functions in respect of
            matters relating to investigation of aircraft accidents or
            incidents specified in this Act or the rules made thereunder.”
16. Further, under Section 5 of the Aircraft Act, 1934, the Central Government
    may make rules for regulating the manufacture, possession, use,
    operation, sale, import or export of any aircraft or class of aircraft and
    for securing the safety of aircraft operations. Among several subjects,
    the Central Government can frame rules in relation to:
     i.     the measures to safeguard civil aviation against acts of unlawful
            interference, under sub-clause (gc) of Section 5;
     ii.    safety oversight and regulatory functions, under sub-clause
            (qb); and
     iii.   regulatory and oversight functions in respect of matters relating
            to civil aviation security, under sub-clause (qc).
17. According to learned senior counsel for the Respondents-accused
    persons, a necessary concomitant which flows from the combined
    reading of the above is that the safety and security of the civil aviation
    is completely governed under the Aircraft Act, 1934 and the Rules
    framed thereunder. At this stage, he referred to Rule 90 of the Aircraft
    Rules, 1937, which reads as under:-
1920                                                       [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          “90. Entry into public aerodromes. –
          (1)   No person shall enter or be in the terminal building
                of any Government aerodrome or public aerodrome
                or part of such building or any other area in such
                aerodrome notified in this behalf by the Central
                Government unless he holds an admission ticket
                issued by the aerodrome operator or an entry pass
                issued by the Commissioner of Security (Civil Aviation)
                or any person authorized by the Central Government
                in this behalf.”
18. Therefore, according to him, the access to an aerodrome and any
    activities thereafter are completely governed by the Act and/or the
    Rules framed thereunder.
19. He pointed out that similarly, Parts II, III, IV and V of the Aircraft
    (Security) Rules, 2011 prescribe the security measures at aerodromes,
    the access control, security checks and the other security measures
    by aircraft operators. Rule 18 under the above stated Part III regulates
    the entry into aerodrome. Further, under the said Aircraft (Security)
    Rules, 2011, Rule 2(y) defines “security incident” which includes the
    contravention of breach of security laws etc.
20. Further, Rules 45 and 46 of the Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2011
    prescribe that any accident / incident has to be reported to the
    Commissioner, who shall order an inquiry to be conducted by a
    competent officer. Rules 45 and 46 are reproduced herein below:-
          “45. Reporting of security accident or incident. -
          Every aircraft operator, aviation security group, aerodrome
          operator, regulated agent and owner or operator of
          catering establishment shall report the security accident
          or security incident to the Commissioner immediately on
          the occurrence of the security accident or security incident.
          46. Investigation of security accident or incident. -
          (1) The Commissioner may order investigation of any
          security accident or security incident and appoint an officer
          not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of security
          as Inquiry Officer.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                           1921

            State of Jharkhand v. Dr. Nishkant Dubey & Ors.


           (2) The Inquiry Officer shall, after affording an opportunity
           of being heard to the defaulting person, make a report to
           the Commissioner who should forward the same to the
           Central Government.”
21. Thus, according to him, even the power of inquiry and investigation
    at aerodromes is only vested with authorities as prescribed under
    the aforesaid Rules.
22. Since learned senior counsel for the Respondents-accused persons
    repeatedly emphasised Section 12B of the Aircraft Act, 1934, the
    same is reproduced hereinbelow:
           “12B. Cognizance of offences – (1) No court shall take
           cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, save
           on a complaint made by or with the previous sanction in
           writing by the Director General of Civil Aviation or Director
           General of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security or Director
           General of Aircraft Accidents Investigation Bureau, as the
           case may be.”
23. According to him, admittedly, the procedure under the Special Act,
    i.e. the Aircraft Act, 1934 was not followed in the present case. He
    submitted that it is a settled principle of law that the provisions of
    the special law will prevail over the provisions of the general law, i.e.
    the Code. Consequently, according to learned senior counsel for the
    Respondents-accused persons, the very power of the State Police
    to investigate / inquire has been curtailed by the aforementioned
    special procedure.
24. He emphasised that the essence of the entire FIR dated
    02nd September, 2022 was that the Respondent No.1 had forcibly
    entered the ATC at the Deoghar Airport and pressurized the personnel
    therein to grant permission for take-off of their aircraft. He stated
    that nothing could be further from the truth as in the present case,
    admittedly, the clearance for take-off was given by the ATC, Kolkata
    Region due to infrastructural reasons. The take-off was completely
    within the permissible limits as regulated by Rule 4 of Schedule II
    of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 which states as under:-
           “4. Flight by Night –Flight by night for the purpose of this
           Schedule, except where otherwise stated, means, a flight
           performed between the period of half an hour after sunset
           and half an hour before sunrise.”
1922                                                      [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


25. He pointed out that the Appellant’s own Affidavit dated 12th November,
    2022 filed by the investigating agency, viz., the Crime Investigation
    Department, P.S. Dumka, Jharkhand before the High Court admits
    as under:-
          “6……..These witnesses have stated that clearance to any
          flight for take off from Deoghar Airport is granted by them
          after getting clearance from Kolkata region. After getting
          clearance from Kolkata Region, the chartered flights was
          given ATC clearance at about 18:15 hrs and the flight took
          off at about 18:17 hrs.”
26. He stated that it is inconceivable as to why the Respondents-accused
    persons would attempt to exert undue influence over the ATC officials
    at Deoghar Airport when the ultimate power to grant ATC clearance
    was in the hands of the ATC Kolkata authorities.
27. He repeatedly emphasised that none of the allegations in the FIR
    made out the offences alleged under IPC. He stated that as the ATC
    clearance was granted by the ATC Kolkata Region which is more than
    300 Kms. from the Deogarh Airport, the Respondent No.1 cannot
    be said to have committed any act endangering the life or safety of
    anyone at the Deogarh Airport under Section 336 IPC.
28. He further stated that the allegation that Respondent No.1 pressurized
    the officials of ATC Deoghar is proven false by the Appellant-State’s
    own Affidavit, inasmuch as, the actual clearance was given by
    ATC Kolkata. Thus, there is no question of the Respondent No.1
    intimidating the ATC Deogarh officials under Section 447 IPC.
29. He lastly contended that the FIR is one of the many instances,
    where the Appellant-State of Jharkhand has filed false FIRs against
    the Respondent No.1 and his family. Among others, on three such
    occasions, those FIRs have been quashed by the High Court and
    the said orders have been upheld by this Court.

                           COURT’S REASONING
     UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND/OR SECTION 482 CODE, HIGH COURT
     CAN QUASH AN FIR
30. It is settled law that in exercise of the extraordinary power under
    Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under
    Section 482 of the Code, it is open to the High Court to quash an FIR
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                          1923

            State of Jharkhand v. Dr. Nishkant Dubey & Ors.


     either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to
     secure the ends of justice. Though it is not possible to lay down any
     precise or rigidly defined formula, yet in State of Haryana & Ors. vs.
     Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335, this Court has held
     that an FIR can be quashed if the allegations made in the FIR or the
     complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted
     in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make
     out a case against the accused or where there is an express legal
     bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned
     Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
     and continuance of the proceedings.

     SECTIONS 336, 447 AND 448 IPC ARE NOT MADE OUT IN THE
     PRESENT CASE
31. Consequently, it is important to examine the allegations in the
    impugned FIR. Accordingly, the FIR in question is reproduced in its
    entirety hereinbelow:-
                                                        No.JH 713487
                         FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
                           (Under Section 154 Cr.P.C.)
           1.   District: Deoghar, P.S.: Kunda, Year 2022, FIR No.:
                0169
                Date and Time of FIR: 02/09/2022 00:00 hrs
           2.       S. No.               Acts                 Sections
                    (1)                  IPC                    336
                    (2)                  IPC                    447
                    (3)                  IPC                    448
                    (4)          Aircrafts Act, 1934             10
                    (5)          Aircrafts Act, 1934            11A
           3.   (a) Occurrence of Offence:
           Day: Wednesday, Date from: 31.08.2022 Date             to:
           31.08.2022 Time Period: 6 pahar;            Time       from:
           17.25 hrs Time to: 18:00 hrs
           (b) Information received at P.S.:
           Date: 02.09.2022         Time 00.05 hrs.
1924                                                             [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


        (c) General Diary Reference: Entry No.: 014
        Date & Time: 02.09.2022
        4.      Type of Information (Written/Oral): Written
        1 (a) Direction and distance from P.S.: South-East 8, Beat
              No.:
              (b) Address: Deoghar Airport, P.S. Kunda
              (c) In case, Outside the limit of the Police Station Name of
        P.S.                          District:
        6            Complainant/ Informant:
        (a)     Name: Suman Anan
        (b)     Father’s/Husband’s Name: Late Rajeshwar Sharma
        (c)     Date of Birth: 1963
        (d)     Nationality: Indian
        (e)     UID No.
        (f)     Passport No.
                 Date of Issue:               Place of Issue:
        (g)     Id details (ration Card, Voter ID Card, Passport, UID
                No., Driving License, PAN)
                 S.No.             ID Type             ID Number
        (h)     Address:
        1.      Present Address: Deoghar Airport, Kunda, Deoghar,
                Jharkhand, India
        2.      Permanent Address: Deonagar, Shastrinagar,
                Girideah Nagar, Girideah, Jharkhand, India.
        7.      Details of the known/suspected/unknown accused
                with full particulars:
         S.N.     Name            Alias       Relative’s   Present Address
                                              Name
         1        Chartered                                1, Unknown
                  Plane Pilot                              Kunda, Deoghar,
                                                           Jharkhand, India
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                                1925

            State of Jharkhand v. Dr. Nishkant Dubey & Ors.



            2       Shree                                1, MP Godda
                    Nishikant                            Lokshabha Godda
                    Dubey                                Magar, Jharkhand,
                                                         India
            3       Shree Kanishk                        1, Unknown,
                    Kant Dubey                           Kunda, Deoghar,
                                                         Jharkhand, India
            4       Shree                                1, Unknown,
                    Mahikant                             Kunda, Deoghar,
                    Dubey                                Jharkhand, India
            5       Shree Manoj                          1, MP North-East,
                    Tiwari                               Delhi Lokshabha,
                                                         New Delhi
            6       Shree Mukesh                         1, Unknown,
                    Pathak                               Kunda, Deoghar,
                                                         Jharkhand, India
            7       Shree Deota                          1, Unknown,
                    Pandey                               Kunda, Deoghar,
                                                         Jharkhand, India
            8       Shree Pintu                          1, Unknown,
                    Tiwari                               Kunda, Deoghar,
                                                         Jharkhand, India
            9       Shree Sandip                         1, Airport Director,
                    Dhingra                              Kunda, Deoghar,
                                                         Jharkhand, India

           8.   Reason of delay in giving the complaint/information…….
           9.   Details of properties of interest:
            S.No. Properties        Property Type    Description   Value
                  Category                                         (In Rs.)



           10. Total value of property (In Rs.)
           11. Inquest Report/U.D. Case No., if any:
                      S.NO.               UIDB Number:

           12. First Information contents:
           To, P.S. In charge, Kunda P.S. District Deoghar,
           Sub: On 31.08.2022 in the Deoghar Airport Shri Nishikant
           Dubey, Hon’ble Member of Parliament Godda and his two
1926                                                       [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


        sons, Shri Manoj Tewari, Hon’ble Member of Parliament
        and others without any permission have entered into the
        ATC and created pressure by using their influence upon the
        ATC personnel for obtaining forceful ATC Clearance. Sir, I,
        Suman Anan, Aged about 59 years, son of Late Rajeshwar
        Sharma, Resident of Deo Nagar Shastri Nagar, P.S. Nagar,
        District Girideah (Jharkhand), Deputy Superintendent of
        Police, presently posted on the post of Security-In-Charge
        of the entire Deoghar Airport. Since the day of my posting
        I am fulfilling my duties with devotion as per rules. With
        respect to the above subject this is to inform you that on
        31.08.2022 at 13.05 hrs. a chartered plane from Delhi
        reached Deoghar Airport. In that chartered plane following
        persons were found: (1) Shri Nishikant Dubey, Hon’ble
        Member of Parliament Godda, (2) Shri Kanishkant Dubey,
        (3) Shri Mahikant Dubey, (4) Shri Manoj Tiwari, Hon’ble
        Member of Parliament. (5) Shri Kapil Mishra, Hon’ble
        Member of Parliament, (6) Shri Sheshavri Dubey, (7)
        Sh. Sunil Tiwari and others. To receive them, huge numbers
        of people were there. After receiving them passengers and
        others came out. In the evening at 17.25 hrs the passengers
        of Chartered Plane and persons came to see-off them at
        Deoghar Airport. All passengers went inside the chartered
        plane and the door of the plane was closed. After some
        time the door of the plane opened, the pilot came down.
        After coming down Pilot started moving towards ATC. Upon
        seeing him moving towards ATC, I became alert from the
        point of view of security and started walking behind the
        pilot. In this regard I would like to mention that at Deoghar
        Airport still the Night Take-off/ Landing and IFR facility are
        not available. Because of non availability of this facility due
        to Low Visibility/ Bad Weather Condition/ After Sunset,
        generally it was not possible to give ATC Clearance to
        Aircraft. On 31.08.2022 the sunset time at Deoghar was
        18.03 hrs and as per my knowledge on that day generally
        the Aircraft could be operated till 17.30 hrs only. When
        I reached the ATC Control Room, there in the Control
        Room Shri Sandeep Dhingra, Director of Airport and Pilot
        of Chartered Plane were already present. At that time
        the pilot of said Chartered Plane was creating pressure
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                            1927

            State of Jharkhand v. Dr. Nishkant Dubey & Ors.


           upon the ATC personnel present at that time and was
           saying that the passengers of Chartered Plane necessarily
           wanted to return back today itself therefore ATC clearance
           be given to them. During this discussion ATC personnel
           were talking on the mobile phone regarding clearance.
           After some time Shri Nishikant Dubey, Hon’ble Member
           of Parliament Godda Parliamentary Constituency, his both
           sons Shri Kanishk Kant Dubey, Shri Mahikant Dubey and
           Shri Manoj Tiwari, Hon’ble Member of Parliament came
           inside the ATC room.
           I was surprised and shocked to see the passengers in
           the ATC Room and I was feeling uncomfortable. Pilot and
           passengers were creating pressure that the clearance be
           given to them at the earliest. Thereafter they get the ATC
           Clearance. Pilot and passengers departed from the ATC
           room. I was observing the Airport security from the ATC
           Room. After some time the pilot and passengers again
           entered into the chartered plane and thereafter chartered
           plane take-off. Therefore keeping in view all the above facts
           it is clear that the above mentioned persons have violated
           the security measures of operating the airport and entered
           into the ATC Room, despite not having availability of, Night
           Operation Facility these persons ignoring the security of life
           and property of the passengers have created pressure for
           ATC Clearance. In this regard it is necessary to mention
           that through different modes the public was mentioning
           this incident. Today on 01.09.2022 at about 11.30 hrs, for
           perusing the entire incident I went into the Control Room.
           Upon perusal of C.C.T.V. of the incident I found that on
           31.08.2022 Shri Mukesh Pathak, Shri Devta Pandey,
           Shri Pintu Tiwari have entered into the ATC building by
           violating the security measures. Therefore, keeping in
           view the above facts, the above mentioned persons have
           violated the security measures, which includes: (1) Pilot of
           Chartered Plane, (2) Shri Nishikant Dubey, Hon’ble Member
           of Parliament Godda Constituency, (3) Shri Kanishkant
           Dubey, (4) Shri Mahikant Dubey, (5) Shri Manoj Tiwari,
           Hon’ble Member of Parliament, (6) Shri Mukesh Pathak,
           (7) Shri Devta Pandey, (8) Shri Pintu Tiwari and (9)
1928                                                         [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          Airport Director Shri Sandeep Dhingra who has committed
          negligence in fulfilling his duty and indirectly supported the
          passengers to enter and remain present in the ATC Room.
          Therefore, kindly register a First Information Report against
          all the above persons in the relevant sections and Acts
          and proceed further in the matter. Faithfully Sd/- 01.09.22
          Suman Annan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Deoghar
          Airport, Deoghar Copy to: (1) Deputy Commissioner,
          Deoghar, (2) Deputy Superintendent of Police, Deoghar,
          (3) Sub Divisional Police Officer, Sadar, Deoghar
          13. Action taken: Since the above information reveals
          commission of offence(s) u/s as mentioned at Item No.2.
          (1) Registered the case and took up the investigation:
          (2) Directed (Name of I.O.): Animanand Roshan Toppo
          Rank: SI (Sub Inspector)
          No. 1101324 to take up the investigation or
          (3) Refused Investigation due to
               Or
          (4) Transferred to P.S.                District
              on point of jurisdiction.
          F.I.R. Read over to the complainant/ informant admitted to
          be correctly recorded and a copy given to the complainant/
          informant free of cost.
          14. Signature/thumb impression of complainant/ informant
          15. Date and time when dispatched to the court
                                                        Sd/-02.09.2022
                                          Signature of Officer In-charge
                                                         Police Station:
                                                Name: Praveen Kumar
                                              Rank: SI (Sub Inspector)
                                              No.
32. Upon a reading of the aforesaid FIR, this Court is of the view that
    offences under Sections 336, 447 and 448 IPC are not made out
    in the present case.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                       1929

            State of Jharkhand v. Dr. Nishkant Dubey & Ors.


33. Section 336 IPC seeks to punish a person who does an act rashly
    or negligently and endangers human life or personal safety of
    others. To attract Section 336 IPC, 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.
34. 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.
35. Further, it is settled law that every trespass by itself is not criminal.
    To constitute criminal trespass the prosecution has to allege that
    the trespass was committed with one of the intents enumerated
    in Section 441 IPC. Accordingly, the prosecution has to prove that
    the complainant had possession of the property in question and
    that the accused entered into or upon the property; or after having
    lawfully entered unlawfully remained there with the intention (a) to
    commit an offence; or (b) to intimidate, insult, or annoy the person
    in possession. In the absence of any such allegation, the offence
    under Section 441/447 IPC cannot be sustained.
36. In the present case, no allegation of forcible entry or intimidation or
    insult or annoyance has been made by any official of ATC. On the
    contrary, the Director of Deogarh Airport has been arrayed as an
    accused in the FIR! Consequently, Section 447 IPC is not attracted
    to the present case.
37. Also, as the ATC office is not a place used as a human dwelling or a
    place of worship or a place for the custody of goods, the ingredients
    of Section 448 IPC are not attracted to the present case.
38. Consequently, taking Sections 336, 447 and 448 IPC as distinct
    offences, no case is made out against the respondents-accused
    persons.
1930                                                       [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     SINCE THE AIRCRAFT ACT, 1934 AND THE RULES FRAMED
     THEREUNDER CONSTITUTE A COMPLETE CODE AND ITS
     SECTION 12B IS IN THE NATURE OF A PRE-CONDITION FOR
     TAKING COGNIZANCE BY A COURT, THE LOCAL POLICE CAN
     ONLY FORWARD THE MATERIAL COLLECTED BY IT TO SUCH
     AUTHORISED OFFICER.
39. This Court is further of the view 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.
40. Section 5 of the Code stipulates that “if any special law or local law
    for the time being in force contemplates any special jurisdiction or
    power or any special form of procedure prescribed, unless there
    is something to the contrary, to be found, it is the provisions of the
    special law or the local law which would prevail.” Further, Clause
    (2) of Section 4, Code mandates that “all offences under any
    other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise
    dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any
    enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or
    place of investigation, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing
    with such offences.”
41. Consequently, 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.

                              CONCLUSION
42. Keeping in view the aforesaid findings, the present appeals are
    dismissed with liberty to the Appellate-State of Jharkhand to forward
    the material collected by it during investigation to such authorised
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                        1931

               State of Jharkhand v. Dr. Nishkant Dubey & Ors.


     officer under the Aircraft Act, 1934 within four weeks, who shall
     take a decision in accordance with law as to whether a complaint
     needs to be filed under the Aircraft Act, 1934 and the Rules framed
     thereunder.

     Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Himanshu Rai, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv.)