$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 3583/2024 SATPAL DESHWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikas Nain, Adv. Ms. Laxmi Muneshwar, Adv. and Ms. Aakanshi Rawat, Advocates.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC with Mr.

Arjit Sharma and Ms. Sakshi Jha, Advocates for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 12.12.2025

1. The Present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”) [corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973] on behalf of the Petitioner/Satpal Deshwal seeking quashing of FIR No.0021/2022 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station I.G.I.

Airport New Delhi.

2. Briefly stated, on 13.01.2022, at around 1825 hrs, while travelling from New Delhi to Doha by Qatar Airways Flight No. QR-581, the Petitioner’s baggage was flagged during X-ray screening on suspicion of containing ammunition. Upon physical checking, five (5) live cartridges were recovered from the Petitioner’s bag.

3. Thereafter, the present FIR No.0021/2022 was registered on 14.01.2022, based on the Complaint of an officer, posted at I.G.I. Airport Security, namely Sh. Amit Khatri.

4. It is submitted by the Petitioner that he had no prior knowledge of the same. The Petitioner later realized that the cartridges had been inadvertently left behind by his late father, who used the same family bag and had not cleaned it before handing it over to the Petitioner. Furthermore, the Petitioner’s father (now deceased) held a valid arms licence issued in the State of Haryana which was valid up to 27.11.2025.

5. It is submitted that due to the rush to board the flight, the Petitioner could not thoroughly inspect the bag, resulting in the inadvertent presence of the five cartridges.

6. It is submitted that the Petitioner is a well-educated, responsible, law- abiding citizen with deep roots in society and has never been involved in any criminal case.

7. Furthermore, there is no mens rea on the Petitioner’s part. He made no attempt to conceal the cartridges and voluntarily submitted his bag for X- ray screening. Reliance is placed on the Apex Court case of Gunwantlal vs.

State of M.P., (1972) 2 SCC 194.

8. It is submitted that the Petitioner was not in conscious possession of the ammunition; the cartridges were left in the bag inadvertently. The Petitioner failed to thoroughly check the bag before packing.

9. Reliance is placed on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Dutt vs. State, (1994) 5 SCC 410, wherein it was held that the word “possession” necessarily implies conscious possession, even if the statute does not use the word “knowingly”.

10. Reliance is also placed on the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in Nurit Toker vs. State of Maharashtra, 2012 BomCR (Cri) 154, relying on Sanjay Dutt, (supra), quashed proceedings where two live cartridges were found in a passenger’s baggage, holding that there was no conscious possession.

11. Reliance has been placed on William Michael Hurtubise vs. State of Odisha, 117 (2014) CLT 303; Hari Kishan vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Crl.M.C. 3865/2016 (decided on 31.05.2019).

12. It is submitted that no firearm or weapon was recovered from the Petitioner except the five live cartridges. Thus, there was no threat posed at the airport to the public or the authorities. The cartridges could not have been used for any unlawful purpose without a firearm, nor do they possess meaningful standalone market value.

13. Thus, a prayer is made to quash the present FIR.

14. The Status Report has been filed on behalf of the Respondent/State wherein the facts leading to the present FIR have been detailed.

15. It is stated that the present FIR was lodged after airport security flagged baggage ID 0157736514 on 13.01.2022 due to suspected ammunition. At 09:05 PM, o