The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered by the Doddaballapura rural police against a centrally regulated aerospace and defence research company after its lightweight drone landed in a residential area.A bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said in a February 24 order that the police cannot “convert a mechanical event into an offence involving mens rea, by a bald assertion made in the complaint”. Mens rea refers to a criminal intention or awareness that an act is wrong.The bench thus quashed the case registered against M/s New Space Research And Technologies Private Limited under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) sections 329 (criminal trespass) and 125 (act endangering life or personal safety of others).The bench said, “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 ingredients of the crime – rash and negligent human act to an inanimate object.”On January 29, a day after Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar died in an air crash in his Baramati constituency, the Doddaballapur police received a complaint on the helpline number 112 about the presence of a drone in Palanayogahalli village and pressed the emergency button, suspecting the drone to be a “spy drone”.Police Inspector Sadiq Pasha informed the forensic science laboratory, internal security officers, bomb squad, and state intelligence department about the seizure of the drone. His preliminary inquiry indicated that the drone might belong to a foreign company because some of its components were manufactured in China. He suspected that the drone may have been used for spying, as the area is close to various offices such as the CRPF campus, BSF campus, Yelahanka Air Force Airport, and foreign companies.The police thus registered a suo motu case of criminal trespass, fearing a potential threat to public safety. Additional State Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesha defended the registration of the FIR claiming the drone was planted by the company. He contended, “It is undoubtedly an object of fear in today’s world that a drone comes and sits in your neighbourhood.”Battery malfunction and the question of jurisdictionStory continues below this adAdvocate Angad Kamath, appearing for the company, submitted that during a routine research and development testing carried out within the leased premises, a lightweight research drone belonging to the company suffered a battery malfunction and glided beyond the boundary of the leased land in the Doddaballapura area of Bengaluru. The company, owing to poor lighting conditions and a lack of GPS signal, could not immediately locate the drone.Kamath also argued that Rule 42 of the Drone Rules 2021 expressly authorises recognised research and development entities to operate drones for research, development, and testing purposes within a Green Zone and within premises or open areas under their control without the requirement of licences, permissions, or approvals. Under the Rules, only the Director General of Civil Aviation, not the police, has jurisdiction to question the company, he further argued.Kamath also alleged that the police had made the company’s officials sit in the police station for six hours and had not provided them with an FIR copy.‘No allegation of intentional human entry’The bench noted that BNS section 329 deals with criminal trespass, predicates liability upon entry into property with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the owner of the said property.Story continues below this adJustice Nagaprasanna said, “The sine qua non of the provision is the existence of mens rea. The FIR, however, is conspicuously devoid of any allegation of intentional human entry or any discernible ingredient of the statute.”He thus held that the mere recovery of a drone cannot by any stretch of imagination satisfy the ingredients of the offence.‘A case of negligible harm’ at mostThe bench referred to BNS section 125 and said, “The FIR does not attribute any such negligent human act to any individual nor does it identify any specific victim.”“Even assuming the widest latitude in favour of the prosecution, the incident at its highest constitutes a case of negligible harm, squarely attracting the doctrine of triviality. There is no allegation of bodily injury, property damage or an aggrieved complainant. Therefore, the case of the respondent/complainant falters on yet another legal plank,” the order read.Story continues below this ad“In the case at hand, the offence under Section 329 or Section 125 of the BNS is not met even to its remotest sense. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is obliteration of the crime,” the bench ruled.Warning to police to provide FIR copyThe bench also held that the denial of the FIR copy “rendered the rights to access illusory and undermines the very purpose of transparency”. It also directed all police stations to scrupulously adhere to the mandate of furnishing a copy of the FIR or, if it is online, furnishing complete details of the FIR to the accused.Any deviation in this regard would be viewed seriously and the erring station house officers or officers in charge of police stations would be open to departmental inquiries, the bench stated.