Delhi High Court Quashes Arms Act FIR After Settlement, Directs Accused To Pay ₹1 Lakh To Environmental Action Group

The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered for attempt to murder as well as under provisions of Arms Act after the parties amicably settled their dispute, while directing four accused to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 each to an environmental organisation.

Justice Amit Bansal observed that considering the simple nature of the injuries sustained by the complainant, the fact that the parties had voluntarily settled their dispute, and that the settlement was arrived at an early stage of the proceedings, the case was fit for exercise of the inherent powers to quash the criminal proceedings.

The Court directed the accused to pay Rs. 25,000 each to the Chintan Environmental Research and Action Group as a condition for quashing the FIR.

The FIR was registered at Palam Village Police Station in June 2024 under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 27 of the Arms Act.

As per prosecution, the dispute arose out of a monetary transaction. The accused allegedly went to the complainant's house, where an altercation took place.

It was alleged that one of the accused allegedly called her bodyguard, who fired shots from a firearm, one of which allegedly struck the complainant, Arshad Khan. Allegations of threats and damage to property were also made.

The Court noted that the Delhi Police had opposed the plea for quashing on the ground that the FIR involved a serious offence, including Section 307 of IPC.

However, Justice Bansal observed that the mere invocation of Section 307 of IPC could not, by itself, prevent the High Court from examining whether criminal proceedings could be quashed on the basis of a settlement.

It noted that the complainant's medico-legal certificate described the injury as “simple blunt” and that the firearm involved was licensed.

The complainant and the injured person appeared before the Court and stated that they had entered into the settlement voluntarily, without coercion, and had no objection to the FIR being quashed.

“The parties are known to each other and have voluntarily settled their disputes and that the settlement has been arrived at an early stage of the proceedings, when the chargesheet has only recently been filed and the trial is yet to commence, coupled with the unequivocal stand of the complainant and injured that they do not wish to pursue the matter, this Court is of the view that the present case falls within the category where the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS can be exercised,” the Court said.

It observed that continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would impose an unnecessary burden on the State exchequer.

Accordingly, it quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings and directed that a compliance report be filed before the Registry within four weeks.