Vaibhav Kaul v. State of NCT of Delhi

1. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR in case No. 0012/2025 registered at Police Station Domestic Airport for commission of offence under Section 30 of Arms Act, 1959, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The petitioner is a student who is pursuing his masters from NIT, Tiruchchirapalli, Tamil Nadu. He has joined the proceeding through video-conferencing and submits that he has already completed his masters.

3. The point involved in the present petition is very short and precise.

4. As per the case of prosecution, the petitioner had come to Terminal-1 of IGI Airport, New Delhi as he was to travel from Delhi to Hyderabad by indigo flight on 15.01.2025.

5. When his bag was scanned, it was found containing one ammunition. He was questioned but he could not give any answer about the presence of such cartridge in his bag. The cartridge was a live one of 9mm 2Z0k02. CRL.M.C. 2281/2025 2

6. The police was, accordingly, informed and it was in the abovesaid backdrop that FIR was registered.

7. Charge-sheet has been filed and the learned Trial Court has already taken cognizance on 26.11.2025.

8. According to the petitioner, he is not aware as to how the abovesaid cartridge was there in his bag. He claimed that he had been using the same suitcase for multiple flights earlier also and even his other family members were using the abovesaid suitcase before him and no such ammunition was detected at any earlier point of time. He also, candidly, claimed that neither he nor any of his family members had any arms license but felt sorry by claiming that he should have checked his baggage, thoroughly, before reporting for boarding.

9. The quashing is being sought for the reason that there is nothing to indicate his conscious possession and therefore, the matter falls within Section 45(d) of Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the element of intention, knowledge on conscious possession is conspicuously missing, the provisions of Arms Act, 1959 would not stand attracted as mere custody of ammunition is not enough and the possession has to accompany mens rea as well.

10. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had no knowledge, conscious or otherwise, about the presence of such cartridge in his baggage and it was never a deliberate act. At best, it is an act of oversight or negligence. It is, therefore, prayed that since the petitioner was not having conscious possession of the live cartridge and was, totally, unaware about the presence of the same in his luggage, the FIR needs to be quashed.

11. Reference be made to order dated 14.01.2026 passed by Coordinate CRL.M.C. 2281/2025 3 Bench of this Court in Seema v. The State NCT of Delhi & Anr (W.P.(Crl) 85/2026) wherein the concerned accused was found in possession of two live cartridges and FIR was quashed. The relevant observations made in the abovesaid order are as under:- “6. 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 IGI Airport 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 also submitted that the petitioner’s husband had borrowed a bag from a family friend, who is a valid arms license holder, due to the petitioner’s own luggage being overweight, and the catridges were inadvertently left in the bag by the licensee, who had admitted to the same in his statement given to the I.O. and has also given his affidavit to the said effect, which is annexed with the present petition. xxxxxx

9. 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 CRL.M.C. 2281/2025 4 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 person to whom physical possession is given holds it subject to that power and control."

10. 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:

11. 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, since the said bag did not belong to her, but was of the family friend. 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. CRL.M.C. 2281/2025 5