Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1393
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHARENJIT SINGH BAKSHI – Appellant
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
CRL.M.C.-452/2026
Key Points: - The court quashed FIR No.576/2025 under Section 30 Arms Act, 1959, noting lack of conscious possession/knowledge and absence of weapon, relying on lack of mens rea. (!) (!) - It relied on prior jurisprudence that mere recovery of ammunition without knowledge or intention does not establish offence; emphasized need for conscious possession under Arms Act. (!) (!) (!) (!) - It referenced and followed precedent including Seema v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr (W.P.(Crl) 85/2026) and other cases recognizing absence of knowledge can justify quashing. (!) - The petitioner held a valid Arms License WDKY/9/2016/1 valid till 16.07.2028; license permitted possession of cartridges; investigation still ongoing (forensic report awaited). (!) (!) - The court directed deposit of Rs. 25,000 with Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund as a condition for quashing, and dismissed the petition with disposal terms. (!) - The act of carrying ammunition was described as inadvertent/oversight rather than deliberate, influencing the decision to quash. (!) (!) - The decision cites constitutional and Supreme Court jurisprudence on possession being a mental element (conscious possession) for offences under Arms Act. (!) (!) (!) (!)
What is the appropriate legal approach to quashing an FIR under Section 30 of the Arms Act where the accused possessed a live cartridge without conscious possession or knowledge, given a valid arms license?
What are the circumstances under which the High Court may exercise inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings in cases involving alleged possession of ammunition without intent or knowledge?
What is the role of mens rea or conscious possession in establishing offences under Section 30 and related provisions of the Arms Act, and how does that impact quashing proceedings?
$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 27th January, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 452/2026 & CRL.M.A. 1795/2026 CHARENJIT SINGH BAKSHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajad Khokher, Advocate.
versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State with SI Manoj Kumar, PS IGI Airport.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The present petition seeks quashing of FIR No.576/2025 dated 17.08.2025, registered at P.S. IGI, Airport for commission of offence under Section 30 of Arms Act, 1959, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that on 16.08.2025, the petitioner, who intended to travel from Delhi to Hong Kong, checked his baggage and when the image of his bag appeared on inline baggage screening monitor, it was suspected containing undeclared ammunition.
3. The suspicion resulted in physical search and during such search of his bag, one live cartridge with “KF 7.65” engraved on the base was recovered and it was in the abovesaid backdrop of the facts that a case under Section 30 of Arms Act, 1959 was registered against the accused.
4. Petitioner seeks quashing of the abovesaid FIR, primarily, for the following reasons:-
a) The petitioner holds a valid arms license issued by the Licensing Unit, and the bullet in question pertains to the same licensed firearm of the petitioner.
b) The petitioner had mistakenly carried a small pouch in which the cartridge was already lying and forgot to thoroughly check the said pouch, which was kept in his luggage, in the rush to catch the flight.
c) The act of carrying the cartridge was not deliberate but occurred due to an oversight. The petitioner was not in conscious possession of the live cartridge and was completely unaware of the presence of the ammunition in his luggage.
5. Learned Addl. P.P. for the State admits that as per the investigation conducted so far, it has come to fore that the petitioner is having a valid Arms License bearing No.WDKY/9/2016/1, valid upto 16.07.2028, and that the licensee was authorized to purchase 50 cartridges in a year and is authorized to possess 25 cartridges at a time.
6. According to learned Addl. P.P. for the State, the cartridge in question is meant for the abovesaid firearm. He, however, supplements that forensic report is still awaited and chargesheet has yet not been filed.
7. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had no knowledge, conscious or otherwise, about the presence of such cartridge in his baggage and it was never a deliberate act. Learned counsel submits that it was rather an act of oversight or negligence. It is, therefore, prayed that since the petitioner was not having conscious possession of the live cartridge and was, totally, unaware about the presence of the same in his luggage, the FIR needs to be quashed. He also relies on Ritesh v. State NCT of Delhi 2025, Rasleen Kaur @ Rasleen Gulati v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine Del 187; Karamjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2022) SCC OnLine Del 800; Satpal Deshwal v. State(NCT Of Delhi) 2025.
8. Reference be also made to order dated 14.01.2026 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Seema v. The State NCT of Delhi & Anr (W.P.(Crl) 85/2026) wherein also, the concerned accused was found in possession of two live cartridges and the FIR was quashed. The relevant observations made in the abovesaid order are as under:-
“6. While praying for quashing of FIR and the criminal proceedings emanating there from, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner had no knowledge regarding the presence of the aforesaid ammunitions/cartridges in her bag and she was only informed by the security officials of the IGI Airport about the same. It is further submitted that petitioner had no intention to carry live ammunitions/ cartridges and the recovered live cartridge cannot be used for any threat purpose without a fire arm and it
