inkinccorporation@gmail.com
Delhi High Court – Orders
Ms Simran vs The State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 23 February, 2026
Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma
Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma
$~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
ORDER
% 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
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:42:21
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.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:42:21
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 none-the-less a
power or control over that weapon so that his possession thereon
continues despite physical possession being in someone else. If this
were not so, then an owner of a house who leaves an unlicensed gun in
that house but is not present when it was recovered by the police can
plead that he was not in possession of it even though he had himself
consciously kept it there when he went out. Similarly, if he goes out of
the house during the day and in the meantime someone conceals a
pistol in his house and during his absence, the police arrives and
discovers the pistol he cannot be charged with the offence unless it can
be shown that he had knowledge of the weapon being placed in his
house. And yet again, if a gun or firearm is given to his servant in the
house to clean it, though the physical possession is with him
nonetheless possession of, it will be that of the owner. The concept of
possession is not easy to comprehend as writers of (sic) have had
occasions to point out. In some cases under Section 19(1)(f) of the
Arms Act, 1878 it has been held that the word “possession” means
exclusive possession and the word “control” means effective control
but this does, not solve the problem. As we said earlier, the first
precondition for an offence under Section 25(1)(a) is the element of
intention, consciousness or knowledge with which a person possessed
the firearm before it can be said to constitute an offence and secondly
that possession need not be physical possession but can be
constructive, having power and control over the gun, while the personThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:42:21
to whom physical possession is given holds it subject to that power
and control.”
8. The above proposition of law was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Sanjay Dutt v. State Through CBI Bombay: (II) Crimes 1994 (3)
344 (SC) and held as under:
“20. The meaning of the first ingredient of “possession’ of any such
arms etc. is not disputed. Even though the word ‘possession’ is not
preceded by any adjective like ‘knowingly’, yet it is common ground
that in the context the word ‘possession’ must mean possession with the
requisite mental element, that is, conscious possession and not mere
custody without the awareness of the nature of such possession. There
is a mental element in the concept of possession. Accordingly, the
ingredient of ‘possession’ in Section 5 of the TADA Act means
conscious possession. This is how the ingredient of possession in
similar context of a statutory offence importing strict liability on
account of mere possession of an unauthorised substance has been
understood.”
9. In Chan hong Saik Thr. Spa: Arvinder v. State & Anr.: 2012 SCC OnLine Del
3320, following observations were made by a Coordinate bench of this Court:
“38. In the present case, single live cartridge which is found without
any fire arm and specially at the stage when he was to leave this
country to his native country.
39. The case of the prosecution is not that he extended any threat to any
of the authority or the fire arms or ammunition was found with any of
this group persons including his own son who was travelling with him.
***
43. Single live cartridge cannot be used for any threat purpose without
fire arms. Value of the same in the market is also not attractive. It
cannot be used for any third purpose. If the intention of the petitioner
was not of either of the purpose mentioned above, then he cannot be
held guilty and punished for the charge framed against him.
***
45. Though, the petitioner has not admitted recovery of the cartridge
and claimed trial, however, even if it is admitted, in my considered
view, he cannot be punished for the charge framed against him becauseThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:42:21
a single cartridge without fire arm is a minor ammunition which is
protected under clause (d) of section 45 of the Arms Act…”
10. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that
petitioner was in conscious possession of the two live cartridges and she was
aware of the said fact. Mere recovery of cartridge itself is not sufficient to
prove the offence in the absence of any intention. It is apparent from the
record that the petitioner was unaware of the fact that the two cartridges
were kept in her bag. It is also a matter of record that no weapon was
recovered from the petitioner to connect her with the intention to use the
recovered cartridge for committing any offence.
11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that no
offence is made out against the petitioner for alleged under the Arms Act.
This Court is further of the view that allowing continuation of criminal
proceedings against the petitioner will be an abuse of process of law. The
writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the FIR bearing no. 02/2018,
registered at Police Station Rithala Metro, Delhi, for offences punishable
under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 and all consequential
proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
12. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.
13. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
FEBRUARY 23, 2026/ns/TD
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:42:21
