$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3762/2025 JANMAJAY SINGH GULERIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. M.P. Sinha, Mr. Yatharth Sinha, Mr. Hitesh Thakur, Mr. Neeraj Kanwar, Ms. Bhavya Razshree and Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocates.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State with SI Pratima, PS-IGI Airport.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 17.12.2025

1. This petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, “BNSS” (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, “CrPC”) seeks quashing of FIR No. 312/2025 dated 14^th April, 2025, registered at P.S. IGI Airport, Delhi, under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, “Arms Act”, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The prosecution case is that in the early hours of 14^th April, 2025, during screening of hand baggage at X-BIS-06, International SHA, Terminal-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi, an image showing suspected ammunition was flagged by security staff. The hand baggage belonged to

the Petitioner, Mr. Janmajay Singh Guleria, who was scheduled to travel from Delhi to Singapore by Indigo flight No. 6E-1013. Upon physical examination of the bag in the presence of the Petitioner, one live ammunition cartridge was recovered. The Petitioner was unable to produce any valid license or authorization for possession or carriage of the ammunition. Consequently, the matter was reported to the local police station on 14^th April, 2025 and the impugned FIR was registered.

3. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was not in conscious possession of the recovered live cartridge. It is contended that the Petitioner is a licensed arms and ammunition holder, holding a valid arms licence issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. The presence of the single live cartridge in his hand baggage was entirely inadvertent and without his knowledge, having been left by mistake in the bag. At the time of travel, the Petitioner was proceeding abroad to participate in an official programme titled “International Exposure Visit for Teachers to Singapore”, organised by the Director of Higher Education. It is further submitted that no firearm was recovered from the Petitioner, there was no attempt at concealment, and the recovery was purely accidental, devoid of any criminal intent.

4. The Court has considered the aforesaid facts and submissions. The State has filed a status report, along with a copy of the verification reply from the Additional District Magistrate, Kangra, confirming the Petitioner’s arms and ammunition licence. It is also undisputed that only one live cartridge was recovered and that no firearm was found in the possession of the Petitioner. The explanation offered by the Petitioner, that the cartridge was inadvertently left in his bag and that he had no knowledge of its presence, remains uncontroverted and is supported by the subsequent licence verification. In these circumstances, the material on record does not disclose conscious or unlawful possession on behalf of the Petitioner so as to attract the rigours of Section 25 of the Arms Act.

5. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has consistently quashed FIRs in cases where the possession of firearm or ammunition was found to be inadvertent and did not constitute ‘conscious possession’⁴

6. The concept of ‘conscious possession’ under the Arms Act requires not merely physical possession of an object, but also knowledge and intent on the part of the possessor, neither of which are established in the present case. The material on record does not suggest any mens rea or culpable intent on the part of the Petitioner, nor does it indicate that the ammunition was carried for any unlawful purpose. The explanation offered by the Petitioner that he did not realize the presence of the ammunition until its discovery is plausible. Further, no firearm was found in his possession, nor is there any allegation that