Jharkhand High Court Quashes MP Nishikant Dubey's FIR Accusing Former Deoghar Deputy Commissioner Of "Sedition", Violating Offical Secrets Act

The Jharkhand High Court last week quashed an FIR against Manjunath Bhajantri, the former Deoghar deputy commissioner, which was filed by Godda MP Nishikant Dubey.

The FIR, originally registered as a zero FIR in Delhi on August 31, 2022, accused Bhajantri of sedition and breaches of the Official Secrets Act, and was later transferred to the Kunda police station in Deoghar. The charges against Bhajantri included Section 353, 448, 201, 506, and 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 7 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, presiding over the matter, after hearing the case, quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings against Bhajantri.

The Court, upon examining the contents of the FIR registered by Dubey, observed that it was “it is crystal clear that this petitioner was not present on the spot / at airport.”

The Court noted that it was itself admitted in the FIR that Dubey had proceeded to the office of the Airport Directorate and that the allegations were made on the instigation of Bhajantri, who was the then Deputy Commissioner of Deoghar District. The Court underscored that the Jharkhand Police had attempted to stop Dubey, who was the informant, and concluded from the contents of the FIR that “it is crystal clear that the petitioner was not present at the spot.”

Regarding the applicability of Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court observed that Section can only be attracted if the allegations were there that the petitioner had assaulted the public servant of used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as a public duty.

The Court remarked, “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”

For attracting Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court explained that the ingredients of Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code are 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. However, the Court observed that such allegations were absent in the case.

While addressing Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court pointed out that it speaks of causing the disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen the offender. The Court held, “However, in the case in hand, as the petitioner has not tried to disappear any of the evidence,” and thus, “no case is made out under that section,” the court

Regarding the charges under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court asserted that the ingredients of Section 442 of the Indian Penal Code are required to be there, which was also lacking in the case in hand, as the petitioner was admittedly not present at the spot/ airport.

The Court questioned, “How a person not present at the place of occurrence, can be charged of house trespass,” and concluded that the ingredients of Section 442 were not met.

Expounding on Section 7 of the Official Secrets Act, the Court observed that it can only be attracted when the 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.

However, the Court observed that in the present case, the petitioner was not present at the spot/airport.

The Court also referenced Sub-Section (3) of Section 13 of the Official Secrets Act, which states that cognizance can only be taken if a complaint case is filed. In this instance, however, a police case had been registered, as noted by the Court.

The Court further noted that the case appeared to be a “counter blast” between Bajantri and Dubey.

The Court noted that the case was registered by the Deoghar Police, Kunda P.S. Case No. 169 of 2022, was already quashed by the Court in W.P.(Cr.) No. 448 of 2022 and its analogous cases. Subsequently, a Zero FIR was registered in New Delhi on 03.09.2022, which was later transferred to Deoghar, leading to the registration of Kunda P.S. Case No. 134 of 2023. The Court suggested that this clearly suggested that the present case was maliciously registered in New Delhi.

The Court also discussed the parameters for quashing an FIR, stating that when the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are found to be, “absurd and inherently improbable,” the court can exercise its power.

The Court underscored its responsibility to examine such cases carefully, noting, “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.”

Accordingly, the Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings and allowed the petition.

Case Title: Manjunath @ Manjunath Bhajantri vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 142

Click Here To Read The Judgement