Disposed¶42

Vishwajit Joshi v. State NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC3 Sept 2025W.P.(CRL)/2788/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

conscious possession; inadvertent possession of ammunition; quashing of FIR under Section 25 Arms Act; live cartridge in airport baggage; IGI Airport; Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC inherent powers; abuse of process of law; costs to Delhi Police Welfare Fund; foreign firearm licence of no effect in India; Sonam Chaudhary; Mitali Singh; Rahul Mamgain.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 0566/2025 dated 13.08.2025 registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act at P.S. IGI Airport, Delhi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, quashed subject to payment of cost of INR 10,000/- to the Delhi Police Welfare Fund by the Petitioner, with proof of deposit to be placed on record within 15 days; petition disposed of along with pending application (CRL.M.A. 26265/2025). ¶42

Vishwajit Joshi Vs State NCT of Delhi — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 0566/2025 registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and the consequential proceedings ought to be quashed on the ground that the Petitioner was not in 'conscious possession' of the live cartridge recovered from his baggage. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The Firearm Safety Certificate issued by the competent authority in California has no applicability or legal effect within the territory of India.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Mere recovery of a single cartridge from the Petitioner's baggage, absent any accompanying firearm or other incriminating material, cannot by itself establish conscious and unlawful possession; the essential ingredients of conscious possession are not satisfied.

¶25

Key takeaways

'Conscious possession' requires not only physical possession of an object but also awareness and intent on the part of the possessor, neither of which is established in the present case.ratio¶27
The Petitioner had no knowledge of the presence of the ammunition in his baggage; no mens rea or culpable intent is suggested and the explanation of inadvertence is plausible.ratio¶33
No offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act is made out against the Petitioner, who does not fall within the mischief sought to be prevented by the statute.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Sanjeev Narula, J.): Petition under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) seeking quashing of FIR No. 0566/2025, P.S. IGI Airport, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, allowed by disposal. A single live 9mm cartridge was recovered from the checked baggage of a traveller bound for Paris; no firearm or other incriminating material was found, there was no attempt at concealment, and the Petitioner had clean antecedents. Held that mere recovery of a single cartridge cannot establish 'conscious possession', which requires both physical possession and awareness/intent; a Firearm Safety Certificate issued in California has no legal effect in India. Relying on Sonam Chaudhary, Mitali Singh and Rahul Mamgain, the Court held no offence under Section 25 Arms Act was made out and continuation would be an abuse of process; FIR and consequential proceedings quashed subject to costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the Delhi Police Welfare Fund, deposit proof within 15 days.

¶1

$~71

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 2788/2025 & CRL.M.A. 26265/2025

¶4

VISHWAJIT JOSHI .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Devinder Singh, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

¶8

Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC. W/SI Jyoti Singh, P.S. IGI Airport.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 03.09.2025

¶12

The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023¹ (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973² ) seeks quashing of FIR No. 0566/2025 dated 13^th August, 2025, registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959³ at P.S. IGI Airport, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12^th August, 2025, at around 11:14 PM, during the screening of baggage bearing tag no. AF 0057213810 at Level-2, Terminal-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi, suspicion arose regarding the presence of undeclared ammunition. The said baggage belonged to one

¶13

1 “BNSS”

¶14

2 “CrPC”

¶15

W.P.(CRL) 2788/2025 Page 1 of 5

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 08/09/2025 at 12:49:49

¶18

Vishawjit Joshi, the Petitioner, who was scheduled to travel from Delhi to Paris by Air France Flight No. AF-225 early the next morning. It is alleged that upon physical search of the baggage at Level-4, in presence of the passenger and airline staff, one live cartridge was recovered. The cartridge bore the engraving “SIC 9mm LUGER” and measured approximately 2.5 cm in length and 0.9 cm in diameter. The same was seized, sealed in a Pulinda, and taken into police possession. The Petitioner failed to produce any valid licence, authority or document permitting the possession or carriage of the said ammunition within the premises of the Airport. Thereafter, on the complaint of Mr. Sanjay Singh Khatri, Sr. Associate, DIAL Security and Vigilance, Terminal-3, the matter was reported to P.S. IGI Airport, Delhi, wherein he identified both the cartridge and the accused Petitioner. Consequently, the impugned FIR was registered against the Petitioner.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner submits that although the Petitioner possesses a valid Firearm Safety Certificate, issued by the Californian Department of Justice, he was not in conscious possession of the live ammunition recovered from his baggage and had no knowledge of its presence. The Petitioner is otherwise having clean antecedents and did not try to conceal the presence at any stage, offering an explanation to the security personnel when called upon to do so. The presence of the live ammunition was purely because of an inadvertent oversight. In the fact and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be served if the present FIR is quashed.

¶20

The Court has considered the afore-noted facts and submissions.

¶21

3 “Arms Act”

¶22

W.P.(CRL) 2788/2025 Page 2 of 5

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 08/09/2025 at 12:49:49

¶25

Although it is noticed that the Petitioner purportedly holds a valid Firearm Safety Certificate issued by the competent authority in California, the same has no applicability or legal effect within the territory of India. Nevertheless, the mere recovery of a single cartridge from the baggage of the Petitioner, absent any accompanying firearm or other incriminating material, cannot by itself establish that the Petitioner was in conscious and unlawful possession of the ammunition. The material placed before the Court indicates that the Petitioner was unaware of the presence of the cartridge until its discovery during the baggage screening. The absence of any attempt at concealment, coupled with the Petitioner’s clean antecedents and immediate cooperation with the security personnel, lends credibility to the explanation that the cartridge remained in the baggage due to inadvertence. In these circumstances, in the prima facie opinion of the Court, it appears that the essential ingredients of conscious possession are not satisfied.

¶26

This Court in Sonam Chaudhary v. The State (Government of NCT of Delhi) ,⁴ Mitali Singh v. NCT of Delhi and Anr. ,⁵ as well as Rahul Mamgain v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. ,⁶ has consistently quashed FIRs in cases where the possession of firearm or ammunition was found to be inadvertent and did not constitute ‘conscious possession’.

¶27

The concept of ‘conscious possession’ requires not only physical possession of an object but also awareness and intent on the part of the possessor, neither of which are established in the present case. The material on record does not suggest any mens rea or culpable intent on the part of the Petitioner, nor does it indicate that the ammunition was carried for any

¶28

4 2016 SCC Online Del 47.

¶29

5 W.P.(Crl.) 2095/2020, decided on 15th December, 2020.

¶30

W.P.(CRL) 2788/2025 Page 3 of 5

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 08/09/2025 at 12:49:49

¶33

unlawful purpose. The explanation offered by the Petitioner that he did not realize the presence of the ammunition until its discovery is plausible. Further, no firearm was found on him, and there is no claim that he used or intended to use the ammunition in any harmful way. It is, thus, evident that the Petitioner had no knowledge of the presence of the ammunition in his baggage.

¶34

The Arms Act imposes strict criminal liability, which must be interpreted carefully. The absence of any incriminating circumstances in the present case reinforces the conclusion that the Petitioner does not fall within the mischief sought to be prevented by the statute. Consequently, no offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act is made out against the Petitioner.

¶35

Furthermore, the Petitioner does not have any prior criminal antecedents, and thus, in the opinion of the Court, the continuation of proceedings in the impugned FIR in such circumstances would serve no legitimate purpose other than subjecting him to undue harassment and prolonged litigation. The Supreme Court has repeatedly opined that criminal proceedings should not be permitted to continue, when they amount to an abuse of the process of law. In the absence of any legal or factual basis to sustain the prosecution, allowing the proceedings to continue would be a miscarriage of justice.

¶36

While the Court finds no basis to prosecute the Petitioner under the Arms Act, his carelessness has led to the unnecessary involvement of the state machinery, an outcome that could have been avoided with greater vigilance. Given that security agencies are obligated to treat all such incidents with seriousness, irrespective of an individual’s intent, the

¶37

6 Crl. M.C. 3783/2022 decided on 17th August, 2022.

¶38

W.P.(CRL) 2788/2025 Page 4 of 5

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

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 08/09/2025 at 12:49:49

¶41

initiation of criminal proceedings was a natural consequence of the Petitioner’s lapse. Accordingly, while the Court deems it fit to quash the impugned FIR, it is considered appropriate to impose costs on the Petitioner in the interest of justice.

¶42

In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 0566/2025 dated 13^th August, 2025, registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act at P.S. IGI Airport, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed, subject to payment of cost of INR 10,000/- with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund, by the Petitioner.

¶43

The proof of deposit be placed on record within a period of 15 days from today.

¶44

With the above directions, the present petition is disposed of, along with pending application.

¶45

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶46

SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 as

¶47

W.P.(CRL) 2788/2025 Page 5 of 5

¶48

This is a digitally signed order.

¶49

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 08/09/2025 at 12:49:49

Vishwajit Joshi v. State NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwajit Joshi v. State NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Gupta & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Kamar Alam & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sh. Mohit Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Prabhat Yadav & Anr. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Jai Ram Garg Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Manish Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Abhishek Vs State and Ors.

Ajay Kashyap & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Mr Rakesh Dutta & Anr. Vs State the NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Abdul Mogni and Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Gaurav Mittal and Anr. & Anr. Vs Government of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Shibha Vohra Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Bhanu Prakash Mishra Alias Monu & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Kxxxxxxxxxxx Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Others