Delhi High Court Quashes Arms Act FIR, Directs Accused To Pay ₹50K Costs To Police Welfare Fund, Lawyers' Bodies

While quashing an FIR registered against a man under the Arms Act, 1959, the Delhi High Court has asked him to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to be deposited with Delhi Police Welfare Fund and three district court Bar Associations.

Justice Amit Mahajan quashed the FIR registered against Pritpal Singh for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, observing that necessary ingredients of the offence were not made out against him.

However, in view of the fact that a chargesheet was filed in the case and the State machinery was put to motion, the court said the ends of justice would be served if Singh was put to cost.

“In view of the above, FIR….and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to the payment of cost of ₹50,000/- by the petitioner, out of which ₹20,000/- to be deposited with Delhi Police Welfare Fund, ₹10,000/- to New Delhi Bar Association (Patiala House Courts), ₹10,000/- to Delhi Bar Association (Tis Hazari District Courts) & ₹10,000/- to Shahdara Bar Association (Karkardooma District Courts) within a period of weeks from the date,” the court said.

Justice Mahajan allowed Singh's plea seeking quashing of the FIR. Singh was apprehended by the police with 14 live cartridges at the entrance of the US Embassy where he was entering with the purpose of his visa interview.

The investigation revealed that Singh was a valid license holder issued by the District Magistrate, Kanpur with permission to carry the .32 caliber NPT bore weapon in the entirety of India.

It was his case that he was a reputed businessman and never misused the weapon. He said he had no intention to carry such cartridges which were seized by the police and the same was an unconscious possession.

Allowing the plea, the court said that Section 45(D) of the Arms Act does not make the acquisition, possession or carrying of minor parts of arms or ammunition, which are not intended to be used along with complementary parts, an offence under the enactment.

“In the present case, barring the allegation of the petitioner having been found in possession of 14 live cartridges in his baggage, there is no other material on record to show that the petitioner was in conscious possession of the said live ammunition,” the court said.

It added that continuance of the proceedings would be a futile exercise and thus, it was a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC and quash the FIR.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. B.P. Singh, Mr. Nakul Nirwan & Ms. Ravina Kumari, Advocates

Counsel for Respondent: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State

Title: PRITPAL SINGH v. STATE

Click here to read order