Dismissed¶28

Indrapal Singh v. the State and Another

Delhi HC8 May 2026CRL.M.C./3611/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.M.C. 3611/2026; quashing of FIR on basis of settlement/compromise deed; FIR No. 555/2022 PS Sunlight Colony; Sections 336/506 IPC; Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act; firing in air at busy public place; Arms Act offences not a private wrong; inherent powers not invoked; interest of justice; petition dismissed as frivolous with Rs.25,000/- cost to DHCLSC; Girish Kathpalia; Delhi High Court; 08.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Apart from the fact that offences under the Arms Act are not a wrong between two individuals, the allegation that the petitioner fired in the air at a busy public place is in itself a serious offence, for which inherent powers cannot be invoked merely because the two individuals entered into some agreement ¶26

Indrapal Singh Vs the State and Another — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether case FIR No. 555/2022 of Police Station Sunlight Colony (Sections 336/506 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act) and proceedings emanating therefrom should be quashed on the basis of the settlement deed dated 04.06.2025 between the petitioner and respondent no. 2

¶10

Court's answer

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Allowing such a quashing petition would encourage repetition of brazen acts of lawlessness by those holding guns; the court was not satisfied that quashing the impugned FIR and proceedings emanating from it would be in the interest of justice

¶27

Key takeaways

The petition was not just devoid of merits but completely frivolous, and was therefore dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with DHCLSC within one week; accompanying applications stand disposed ofratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR refused despite settlement between parties — Delhi High Court (Girish Kathpalia, J.) declined to exercise inherent powers to quash FIR No. 555/2022 of PS Sunlight Colony (Sections 336/506 IPC; Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act) notwithstanding a settlement deed dated 04.06.2025 between petitioner Indrapal Singh and respondent no. 2 Gaurav Sharma. Held: offences under the Arms Act are not a wrong between two individuals, and the alleged firing of a shot in the air at a busy public place is itself a serious offence for which inherent powers cannot be invoked merely because the individuals entered into an agreement; allowing such petitions would encourage acts of lawlessness by gun-holders. Petition dismissed as completely frivolous with cost of Rs.25,000/- payable to DHCLSC within one week.

¶1

$~85

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 08.05.2026

¶4

- CRL.M.C. 3611/2026 & CRL.M.A. 14636/2026

¶5

INDRAPAL SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amitava Poddar and Mr. Narender Singh, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE AND ANOTHER .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State with ASI Devender Kumar

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶9

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶10

The petitioner seeks quashing of case FIR No. 555/2022 of Police Station Sunlight Colony for offence under Section 336/506 IPC and Section 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act on the basis of settlement deed dated 04.06.2025 arrived at between the petitioner and respondent no. 2.

¶11

Learned APP for the State assisted by IO/ASI Devender Kumar accepts notice and strongly opposes the petition in view of seriousness of the offences alleged.

¶12

CRL.M.C. 3611/2026

¶13

Page 1 of 3 pages

¶14

GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80 KATHPALIA cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.05.08 05:09:40 -07'00'

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:0 8.05.2026 17:20:24

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

¶18

The impugned FIR was registered on the complaint of the present respondent no. 2 Gaurav Sharma, alleging that on 11.12.2022 at about 09:05pm, when he was going home and reached under the foot over bridge of Ashram, the builder Inder Chaudhary ( the petitioner ) pointed a revolver at him with the threat to kill, after which the petitioner fired in the air to terrorise the respondent no. 2 and at that time Ajay Mishra, friend of respondent no. 2 also was present. After that, the petitioner fled the spot. Further, it is stated in the FIR that the present petitioner is embroiled in the property dispute with father of the respondent no. 2 and that dispute is pending in the High Court.

¶19

On behalf of petitioner, it is contended by learned counsel that since no harm was caused to respondent no. 2 and since the petitioner and respondent no. 2 have compromised the disputes, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the impugned FIR.

¶20

On the other hand, learned APP strongly opposes the petition, contending that the offences under the Arms Act are not wrong between two individuals, so the FIR cannot be quashed. Besides, as per prosecution, it would not be correct to say that respondent no. 2 did not suffer any harm, because the respondent no. 2 got terrorised with the shot fired by petitioner in the air as alleged in the FIR.

¶21

CRL.M.C. 3611/2026

¶22

Page 2 of 3 pages

¶23

GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd KATHPALIA 2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.05.08 05:10:10 -07'00'

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:0 8.05.2026 17:20:24

¶26

In my considered view, apart from the fact that the offences under the Arms Act are not the wrong between two individuals, even the rest of the allegations, especially the allegation that the petitioner fired in the air, that too at a busy public place, in itself is a serious offence, for which inherent powers cannot be invoked merely because the two individuals entered into some agreement.

¶27

Allowing such petition would lead to encouragement for repeating such brazen acts of lawlessness at the hands of those holding gun. I am not satisfied that it would be in the interest of justice to quash the impugned FIR and the proceedings emanating from the same.

¶28

The present petition is not just devoid of merits but completely frivolous, so dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with DHCLSC within one week. Accompanying applications stand disposed of.

¶29

Copy of this order be given to the IO/ASI Devender Kumar, who shall ensure the compliance regarding payment of cost and shall file report within Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA two weeks. DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,

¶30

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
GIRISH 569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
KATHPALIA 0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa
, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.05.08 05:10:27 -07'00'

¶31

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

MAY 08, 2026

‘ rs’

CRL.M.C. 3611/2026

Page 3 of 3 pages

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:0 8.05.2026 17:20:24