Hiteshkanzariya v. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Anr

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner illegally entered theTerminal 3 ofthe Indira Gandhi International Airport by editing the name on the e-ticket allegedly belonging to his friend. A FIR Crl.M.C 983/2017 Page 1of[5] 2017:DHC:8070 (7 was then registered against the petitioner and charges were framed against the accused. Thereafter, the accused moved an application for pleabargaining which subsequently failed.

3. Mr. N. Hariharan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that it was only by genuine mistake on part of the petitioner without any dishonest or fraudulent intention; that he is a student who is about to secure a government job and a conviction will jeopardise his career; that to constitute an offence under Section 463 of IPG, there must be an intent to cause damage or injury or intent to commit fraud; that to constitute an offence of cheating or forgery there has to be presence of fraudulent or dishonest intention, ftirther cheating as defined under Section 415 IPC requires an element of deception and fi-audulent or dishonest inducement by the accused and the present case lacks any ofthose. The learned Senior Counsel further contends that no offence is made out against the appellant as admission before the police officials is no admission in law and does not constitute as evidence, also the police officials have not seized the computer on which the petitioner allegedly edited the e-ticket thus not meeting the requirements under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 therefore there is no point in proceeding with the matter before the trial court. The learned Senior Counsel further contends that the petitioner is covered by Section 95 of the IPC as the act of the petitioner caused just slight harm of such degree that a person of ordinary sense shall not complain.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon Netai Crl.M.C 983/2017 Page[2] of[5] Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2005 (2) SCC 659, Inder Mohan Goswami & Am Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 251 and Muralidhar Sathpaathy Vs. State ofOrissa reported in 2007(1) OLR 611.

5. Per contra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned APP contends that gaining access to the International Airport using a fake e-ticket can seriously hamper or cause unlawful interference with the civil aviation operation while causing annoyance within the meaning of Section 441 of the IPG. The learned counsel further contends that the Airports are hyper-sensitive areas from security point of view and no illegal intrusion can be allowed as it poses a threat to national security. He further submits that trial is currently at evidence stage andat this stage no interference is called for by this court.

6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents on the record.

7. The charges have been framed against the petitioner by the trial court vide order dated 20.02.2017. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

8. It is a settled proposition of law that this court shall not interfere with trial court proceedings unless it is made out that complaint is mala fide frivolous or vexatious. In Dhanalakshmi Vs. R. Prasanna Kumar reported in 1990 Supp 1 SCC 686, the Supreme Court observed that, "Ifthe allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which the cognizance is taken by the Crl.M.C 983/2017 Magistrate it is open to the High Court toquash the same in exercise ofthe inherentpowers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis ofthe case, before the trial tofind outwhether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If itappears on a consideration ofthe allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is malafide frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justificationfor interference by the High Court."

9. In the present case, it is the admitted position that the petitioner was found with an edited e-ticket bearing his name, though the same did not belong to him but was issued inthe name ofJayashri Tayade whom he had allegedly accompanied to help with the excessive luggage which the latter was carrying, in the premises of Terminal 3, Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi. Thereafter a FIR was registered against him. Further, the petitioner had allegedly written an apology to theDIG, CISF andto the SHO, P.S. IGI Airport for editing the ticket of Jayashri Tayade and illegally entering the Terminal 3 ofthe Indira Gandhi International Airport. Thus, prima facie it is not made out that the FIR is mala-fide frivolous or vexatious. Therefore, at this stage it is too early to quash the complaint. Further the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel dealing with the merits of the case, are a subject matter of Crl.M.C 983/2017 Page 4of[5] the trial andwould be bestdealt with during thetrial proceedings.

10. Further, bare perusal of Section 309 CrPC makes it amply clear that the intent of legislature is to provide justice expeditiously to both the accused person and the complainant. Further the Supreme Court in plethora of cases has observed that the justice has to be dispensed with in a swift manner without prejudice to any of the parties.

11. In the light of the peculiar circumstances of the present case wherein the fiiture of a young boy who has been offered a job with Airline Allied Services Limited, is at stake, I deem it appropriate that the trial is concluded in an expeditious manner without entertaining any unnecessary adjournments. The trial court shall make an endeavor to dispose of the present FIR in question within 90 days from the date ofreceipt ofthis order.

12. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent.

13. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of SEPTEMBER 15,2017 //gr SANGlp^H^^^^ SEHGAL, J