“Brazen Acts Of Lawlessness”: Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash Air-Firing Case Despite Compromise Between Parties

The Delhi High Court recently refused to quash an FIR registered under the Arms Act against a builder accused of threatening a man with a revolver and firing in the air at a busy public place, holding that such “brazen acts of lawlessness” cannot be wiped out merely because the parties have entered into a compromise.

Justice Girish Kathpalia dismissed the petition seeking quashing of FIR under Sections 336 and 506 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act on the basis of a settlement deed executed between the Petitioner and the complainant.

According to the FIR, the Petitioner pointed a revolver at the complainant, threatened to kill him and fired in the air to terrorise him before fleeing the spot. The FIR also stated that the petitioner was embroiled in a property dispute with the complainant's father.

Before the Court, counsel for the petitioner argued that no actual harm had been caused to the complainant and that since the parties had amicably resolved their disputes, continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

The State opposed the plea, contending that offences under the Arms Act were not private disputes between two individuals and could not be quashed merely because of a settlement. It was further argued that the complainant had indeed suffered harm as he was terrorised by the alleged gunshot fired in public.

Agreeing with the State, the Court observed that allegations of firing a gun in the air at a busy public place constituted a serious offence affecting society at large. The Court held:

“Apart from the fact that the offences under the Arms Act are not the wrong between two individuals, even the rest of the allegations, especially the allegation that the petitioner fired in the air, that too at a busy public place, in itself is a serious offence, for which inherent powers cannot be invoked merely because the two individuals entered into some agreement.”

The Court further cautioned that allowing such petitions would encourage such “brazen acts of lawlessness” at the hands of those holding gun.

Holding the petition to be “completely frivolous,” the Court dismissed it with costs of ₹25,000 to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one week.

Appearance: Mr. Amitava Poddar and Mr. Narender Singh, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State with ASI Devender Kumar for Respondent

Case title: Indrapal Singh v. State

Case no.: CRL.M.C. 3611/2026

Click here to read order