Aircraft Act Is Complete Code; Police Must Forward Probe Material To Aviation Authority, Supreme Court Holds

A bench of Justices Manmohan and Abhay S. Oka heard appeals by the State of Jharkhand challenging a Ranchi High Court order quashing an FIR registered after an incident at Deoghar Airport and raised questions on the applicability of IPC offences vis-à-vis the Aircraft Act, 1934 and related rules.

The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court's quashing of the FIR, finding that the allegations did not prima facie make out offences under Sections 336, 447 and 448 IPC and that the Aircraft Act and rules formed a special, complete code governing aerodrome safety and security. The Court emphasised that Section 12B of the Aircraft Act operated as a pre-condition to taking cognizance under that statute and that local police could only forward materials to the authorised aviation authority. As the Court noted, "it is open to the High Court to quash an FIR ... 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..." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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." The Court dismissed the appeals while granting the State liberty to forward investigation material to the authorised officer under the Aircraft Act within four weeks.

Background The FIR arose from events on 31 August 2022 at Deoghar Airport where the informant, the airport Security-in-charge, alleged that passengers including a sitting Member of Parliament and others entered the ATC room and exerted pressure on ATC personnel to secure clearance for a chartered flight, which purportedly took off after sunset. The State argued that the entry into a restricted ATC area amounted to a security breach and that offences under IPC and the Aircraft Act were attracted; it also contended that registration of an FIR and investigation by police were permissible and Section 12B would be relevant only at the stage of filing a complaint or charge-sheet.

The respondents contended that the chartered flight had obtained clearance from the Kolkata ATC, that the Deoghar ATC neither granted nor controlled the clearance, and that the operation fell within the definition of night flight as per the Aircraft Rules; they argued that the Aircraft Act and its rules provided the exclusive procedure and that Section 12B required prior sanction by specified aviation authorities for cognizance. The High Court quashed the FIR on grounds of mala fides and abuse of process; this Court undertook a review of the allegations and legal framework.

In applying settled principles permitting a High Court to quash FIRs under Article 226 or Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court examined whether the FIR's allegations, taken at face value, prima facie constituted offences under the IPC. The Court concluded that the ingredients of Sections 336, 447 and 448 were not made out on the face of the FIR: mere requests to ATC and the fact that clearance was ultimately granted did not demonstrate rashness or criminal trespass with the requisite mens rea. The Court held that the Aircraft Act and rules constitute a "complete Code" dealing with civil aviation security and that the statutory pre-condition in Section 12B circumscribed the court's cognizance in respect of offences under that Act. The appeals were dismissed with the specific direction that the State may forward the material collected during investigation to the authorised officer under the Aircraft Act within four weeks, who would decide in accordance with law whether to file a complaint.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 5475–5477 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 7844/2023, 7816/2023, 7706/2023); 2025 INSC 94 Case Title: State of Jharkhand v. Dr. Nishkant Dubey & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Names not specified in the judgment text] For the Respondent(s): [Names not specified in the judgment text]