The Supreme Court has taken cognizance of the petition filed by the State of Jharkhand, challenging the decision of the Jharkhand High Court to quash the First Information Report (FIR) against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Members of Parliament (MPs) Nishikant Dubey, Manoj Tiwari, and others in the Deoghar Airport case. The FIR was filed against them for allegedly pressuring and threatening the Air Traffic Control (ATC) to allow the takeoff of a private aircraft, violating security regulations at Deoghar Airport in September 2022.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol has issued a notice to Dubey, Tiwari, and the other accused, in response to the State's plea. The High Court had ruled that the Indian Penal Code (IPC) offenses were not applicable in this case since there is a special act, namely the Aircraft Act, 1934. Furthermore, the High Court stated that the FIR was not maintainable as a complaint should have been filed with the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) under Section 12B of the Aircraft Act.

The State of Jharkhand argued that offenses under the IPC are distinct and separate from those under the Aircraft Act. They contended that the Aircraft Act should not prevail over the IPC when safety and security regulations were violated, endangering the lives and safety of the airport. The State also raised concerns about the High Court conducting a mini-trial under Article 226, as well as the misuse of the accused MPs' positions in public office.

In the background of the case, it was alleged that Dubey, Tiwari, and others forcibly entered the ATC and pressured the personnel to grant permission for takeoff. It was further claimed that Deoghar Airport was not equipped for night takeoffs. The FIR was filed against them under various sections of the IPC and the Aircraft Act.

The Jharkhand High Court held that the flight had taken off with ATC clearance and therefore the petitioner was not liable for prosecution. The court noted that under the Aircraft Act, cognizance of the offense can only be taken by a complaint to the DGCA, making the FIR not maintainable. The High Court also emphasized that when a special law exists with provisions for punishment, IPC sections are not applicable.

The High Court further observed that the FIR had been filed in a malicious manner and that allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Case Title: State of Jharkhand v Nishikant Dubey | SLP(Crl) No. 7844/2023