$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1938/2024 MS SIMRAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S. N. Khan and Mr. Salman Khan, Advocates alongwith petitioner in person (through VC)

versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with Inspector Rajpal, P.S.

Rithala Metro CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

O R D E R

% 23.02.2026

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR bearing no. 02/2018, registered at Police Station Rithala Metro, Delhi, for offence punishable under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The brief facts, as per the prosecution case are, that on 04.05.2018, during screening through the inline X-BIS machine at Kohat Enclave Metro Station, the check-in bag of the petitioner was scanned and two live cartridges were detected therein. Upon inquiry by the CISF officials, the petitioner failed to produce any valid licence or authorization for carrying the said ammunition. It is further submitted that Contable Satish Singh, CISF had handed over a written complaint along with two live 8 mm cartridges and the petitioner to the local police. The cartridges were placed on white paper, their sketch was prepared, and measurements were taken, revealing the length as 7.5 cm and width as 1.4 cm, with “KF” engraved on the base. Thereafter, the recovered cartridges were sealed in a white cloth parcel (pulanda) with the seal of “L.L.”, and the FSL form was duly filled. The sealed pulanda was taken into police possession, in accordance with law. On the basis of the above facts, the present FIR bearing no. 02/2018 was registered at Police Station Rithala Metro Station for commission of offence punishable under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner has preferred the present petition for quashing of the present FIR.

4. 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 concerned Metro Station 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 does not attract any offence in the absence of any knowledge of conscious possession. It is contended that in the year 2018, the petitioner was a student and was pursuing two year Diploma course in Special Education from Ashtavakra Institute of Rehabilitation Science and Research, Pitampura, Delhi and she used to attend class daily by travelling through Delhi Metro from Welcome Station to Kohat Enclave Metro Station. It is stated that on the day of incident, the petitioner had left her bag in the college library and canteen while going to the washroom, and these cartridges had been put inside her bag by someone.

5. The learned APP for the State has opposed the present petition. It is submitted that the recovered ammunition was sent to FSL, for expert opinion and the report received from the FSL has been annexed with the Status Report, which has been handed over to this Court.

6. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner as well as State, and has perused the material available on record.

7. The Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gunwantlal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh: (1972) 2 SCC 194 has explained the meaning of possession in the context of Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and held as under:-

"The possession of a firearm under the Arms Act in our view must have, firstly the element of consciousness or knowledge of that possession in the person charged with such offence and secondly where he has not the actual physical possession, he has no