The Karnataka High Court has quashed a 2018 case registered against Audrey Deepika Maben, India’s first woman examiner of microlight aircraft approved by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), where she was alleged to have forged her examiner’s signature and seal while applying to renew her pilot’s licence in 2013-14.
Quashing the proceedings under sections 420 (cheating) and 465 (forgery) and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code on June 4, Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The criminal court cannot be transformed into an arena for determination of highly technical aviation disputes, when the very regulatory body (DGCA), entrusted with such a determination, is yet to record any finding against the petitioner.”
The court cited the delay in filing the complaint as one of the grounds for quashing the case.
“Being in the same field of operation as the petitioner, the complainant would indubitably have been aware that the petitioner continued to fly aircraft, necessarily on the basis of a licence renewed by the DGCA. The explanation that the complainant suddenly ‘discovered’ the alleged forgery while cleaning her cupboard years later hardly inspires confidence,” its order read.
“If such belated awakenings, unsupported by any cogent explanation, are permitted to trigger criminal prosecution after years of silence, it would open floodgates for abuse of the criminal process and reduce the administration of criminal justice into an instrument of personal vendetta,” the order added.
On November 26, 2013, Maben undertook her General Flying Test to renew her pilot’s licence (microlight), for which the complainant, Vinitha M C, was the designated examiner.
The DGCA did not approve the renewal of Maben’s licence at that juncture, on the grounds that she had yet to complete certain medical examinations. After completing the medical formalities, she again underwent the pilot’s licence renewal test on September 11 and 12, 2014, with Vinitha functioning as the examiner.
Story continues below this ad
In 2015, Maben obtained a divorce from her husband, triggered by the allegation that he was in a relationship with Vinitha. Between October 5, 2017, and January 25, 2018, Vinitha filed a complaint before the DGCA alleging that no flying skill test had in fact been conducted for Maben’s licence renewal.
The DGCA called on Vinitha to furnish the personal logbook relating to microlight flying operations. However, as there was no immediate action to her satisfaction, Vinitha approached the police alleging that Maben had fabricated the logbook and forged both her signature and official seal to renew her licence.
Senior advocate Jayna Kothari, appearing for Maben, argued that the professional rivalry and personal dispute between the two concerning the former husband were the reasons for the complaints. Further, she said that the police complaint was registered three years after the alleged offence, with no reason given for the delay.
On the other hand, Vinitha’s advocate, Sahana B V, contended that the client did not carry out any skill test for Maben on the two dates in 2014, and therefore, the examiner’s signatures on the skill test report and the personal logbook were forged. She made the initial complaint to the DGCA on October 5, 2017. When it took no action, the impugned complaint was registered.
Personal bitterness emanated from matrimonial discord
Story continues below this ad
The high court referred to the order of the family court granting divorce to Maben and said, “A perusal of the said judgment would unmistakably reveal that the decree of divorce was granted, prima facie, on the footing that the husband of the petitioner had been living in an adulterous relationship.”
“Nearly two years after the decree of divorce, the complainant chose to address a complaint before the DGCA alleging that the petitioner had forged the skill test logbook and had managed renewal of her flying licence, without even undertaking the mandatory flying test,” the court added.
Noting that the alleged acts of forgery pertain to September 2014, whereas the complaint before the DGCA emerged only in October 2017, the high court held that Vinitha had no “no whisper of explanation” for the delay of nearly three years.
“The silence becomes even more conspicuous when one notices that the petitioner and the complainant were not strangers thrown together by chance circumstances, but professionals operating within the same confined aviation ecosystem.”
Story continues below this ad
The court rejected as unconvincing Vinitha’s claim that she had stumbled upon a copy of the skill test report purportedly containing her forged signature in her cupboard on September 29, 2017, three years after the alleged forgery.
Complainant filed before Maben was to undertake circumnavigation
The bench also noted that Vinitha made the high court complaint in March 2018, just before Maben was going to undertake a circumnavigation expedition across the globe on a light aircraft.
The court observed that the DGCA, a specialised statutory authority governing civil aviation and licensing, is inquiring into a complaint on the same set of allegations.
“In such circumstances, to permit criminal machinery to proceed ahead of the competent regulatory authority would not only be precipitous, but would also risk irreparable prejudice to the petitioner. Such a course would inevitably degenerate into an abuse of the process of law,” the court said.
