FIR Can Be Quashed If It Is Absurd & Inherently Improbable; Court Required To Read In Between Lines: Jharkhand HC
The Jharkhand High Court quashed an FIR registered by MP Nishikant Dubey while observing that an FIR can be quashed if the allegations made in the complaint are found “absurd and inherently improbable.”
The Court took note of the “counter blast” between the Deputy Commissioner (petitioner) and the MP which clearly suggested “that maliciously the present case has been registered” at New Delhi in the form of Zero FIR. The Bench 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.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “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.”
Advocate Indrajit Sinha appeared for the petitioner, while Sr. SC Shiv Kumar Sharma represented the respondents.
The case alleged in the FIR was that the MP accompanied by MLA Manoj Tiwary attempted to take a flight from Deoghar Airport to Delhi. Due to the absence of night landing facilities, their flight was interrupted. Subsequently, the MP entered a restricted area of the airport, allegedly without proper authorization. The petitioner, then Deputy Commissioner of Deoghar, was accused of directing actions that obstructed the MP’s movements and later faced allegations of criminal conspiracy, trespassing, and compromising national security.
The FIR, initially registered as a Zero FIR in New Delhi, was later transferred to Deoghar and re-registered as Kunda P.S. Case No. 134 of 2023. The charges included sections 353, 448, 201, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 7 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. Manjunath, through his counsel Mr. Indrajit Sinha, has vehemently argued that these charges are unfounded and do not hold under legal scrutiny.
The High Court noted that in the FIR, it was admitted by the MP that he proceeded to the office of Airport Directorate and allegations were made on the instigation of the petitioner, who was the then Deputy Commissioner with Jharkhand Police, tried to stop the respondent MP. “Thus, from the contents of the FIR, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was not present at the spot,” the Court stated.
The Court further noted that since the MP was not on official duty and the petitioner was not present at the spot, the alleged criminal force could not have been utilized by this petitioner.
Therefore, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings and remarked, “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.”
Consequently, the Court observed, “It is a case and a counter blast between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4. The case registered by the Deoghar Police…which was registered on 02.09.2022 has already been quashed by this court…and its analogous cases and subsequently, the Zero FIR was registered at New Delhi on 03.09.2022, thereafter it was transferred to Degohar, 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.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Manjunath @ Manjunath Bhajantri v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Indrajit Sinha and Ajay Kumar Sah
Respondents: Sr. SC Shiv Kumar Sharma; AC Md. Asghar; Advocate Amit Sinha
