Kerala High Court: P. Somarajan, while dismissing a plea for quashing of FIR against parallel charges under Penal Code, 1860 and other enactments, said, “It is not a mere case of violation of provisions contained in the special enactment” and the applicability of overriding cannot strictly apply.
Brief Facts
The present writ petition is sought for quashing of FIR against the petitioner, on the ground that the accused cannot be charged for an offence under IPC when the same is covered by provisions of a special enactment. The alleged FIR was registered against the accused under Sections 124A and 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 4 and 20, Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Sections 3 and 6 of Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933.
http://www.scconline.com/DocumentLink/wNz74jV9
http://www.scconline.com/DocumentLink/XiSCXTmY
http://www.scconline.com/DocumentLink/yt2p0O70
Contentions
The petitioner relied on the legal proposition as laid down under State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aman Mittal [2020 (1) KLT 260 (SC)], wherein the Supreme Court observed that section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, completely overrides the provisions of Chapter XIII of Indian Penal Code and as such, the accused cannot be charged for the same offence under Chapter XIII of IPC. Essentially, the main argument was that the provisions of a special enactment shall exclude the scope of general enactment and given to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the FIR comprising sections of IPC must be quashed.
Observations
The Court observed that Sections 4 and 20 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Sections 3 and 6 of Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 are distinct offences having no overriding effect over Chapter XIII of Indian Penal Code. Further, the allegation levelled against is not confining to the provisions contained in the special enactment but extend to the offence of sedition punishable under Section 124A of IPC and the offence of cheating by playing deception on the statutory authority. It is not a mere case of violation of any of the provisions contained in the special enactment.
Decision
While dismissing the instant case, the Court said, “there cannot be any overriding effect especially when the allegation levelled against would prima facie satisfy the ingredients which would attract sedition as defined under Section 124A IPC by maintaining a parallel telephone exchange in secrecy and also the offence of cheating by playing deception on the statutory authority causing unlawful loss and gaining unlawful enrichment.”[Firoz v. State of Kerala, Crl. MC. No. 2220 of 2020, decided on 24-09-2020]
