The Karnataka High Court has quashed a first information report (FIR) registered against aerospace firm NewSpace Research and Technologies Pvt Ltd after a drone developed by it drifted into a neighbouring property [NewSpace Vs State of Karnataka].
Justice M Nagaprasanna ruled that criminal law cannot be invoked against an “inanimate object" and the allegations in the FIR did not disclose the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 125 (rash or negligent act) and 329(3) (criminal trespass) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
“Criminal jurisprudence, as it stands, continues to rest upon the bedrock of mens rea and criminal justice system cannot be invoked on the basis of speculative or mechanical attribution of the ingredients of the crime – rash and negligent human act to an inanimate object,” the Court said in the order passed on February 24.
The petitioner-company, engaged in research and development of unmanned aerial systems, was conducting routine drone testing on a 48-acre leased land in Doddaballapura of Bengaluru Rural district.
On January 29, one of its lightweight prototype drones reportedly suffered a battery malfunction and drifted beyond the testing zone, landing in a neighbouring property. Due to poor lighting and GPS issues, the drone could not be immediately located.
On receiving a helpline complaint about the drone’s presence, the local police registered a suo motu FIR, treating it as a case of trespass and potential endangerment to life.
The company later approached the High Court, contending that the incident was accidental, caused no harm, and did not involve any criminal intent or negligence.
On February 6, the Court stayed the investigation in the case.
In its final order, the High Court held that the FIR did not satisfy even the threshold requirements of the alleged offences.
On criminal trespass, the Court observed
"The recovery is of a drone. Mere recovery of a drone, without anything more, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, satisfy the ingredients of the offence. Therefore, Section 329 of the BNS is loosely laid against the petitioner."
It further held that the FIR was “conspicuously devoid" of any allegation of intentional human entry or any discernible ingredient of the statute.
Even assuming the prosecution’s case at its highest, the Court held that the incident constituted negligible harm.
It observed that there was no allegation of bodily injury, property damage or an aggrieved complainant and that the case was a “classic illustration” for application of the doctrine of triviality.
Hence, it proceeded to quash the case.
The Court also took note of the failure of the police to provide a copy of the FIR to the petitioner despite requests.
It held mere assertion that FIR is uploaded online cannot be a substitute for compliance with the obligation, and that denial of such access renders the rights of the accused “illusory.”
The Court warned that any deviation from this requirement would be viewed seriously and could lead to departmental action against the erring officer.
The petitioner was represented by advocate Angad Kamath.
The State was represented by Additional State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha.
[Read Judgment]