Court exercises inherent powers under BNSS 2023 and CrPC 1973 to quash serious offence FIR involving licensed firearm, emphasizing early settlement and nature of injury
In a significant judgment delivered on September 29, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Amit Bansal, quashed FIR No. 0338/2024 registered at Palam Village Police Station under Sections 307, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The case stemmed from a monetary dispute between neighbours which escalated into an altercation involving the discharge of a licensed firearm, resulting in an injury described as "simple blunt" by the medical report.
The petitioners, Ms. Priya Sahani @ Pooja and others, had approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR on the basis of a settlement deed executed on July 18, 2024. The dispute arose when the petitioners visited the complainant's residence, leading to an altercation during which a shot was fired by a bodyguard, injuring the complainant, Arshad Khan. The State initially opposed the quashing, citing the grave nature of the offence under Section 307 IPC, which is non-compoundable and generally considered serious.
However, the Court, guided by precedents such as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), and the recent Supreme Court ruling in Naushey Ali v. State of U.P. (2025), undertook a meticulous analysis of the facts. The judgment emphasized that the invocation of Section 307 IPC alone is not determinative. The Court examined the nature of the injury, which was medically certified as simple and blunt, the fact that the firearm was licensed, and that the parties had voluntarily settled the dispute without coercion.
The Court noted that the charge-sheet had been filed, but the trial had not commenced, and the complainant and the injured party expressed their unwillingness to pursue the matter further. Observing that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and would unnecessarily burden the State exchequer, the Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to quash the FIR and proceedings.
As a condition, the Court directed the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 each to the `Chintan Environmental Research and Action Group,' an environmental organization based in New Delhi. The Court also mandated filing of a compliance report within four weeks.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's balanced approach in cases involving serious offences where early settlement is reached, injuries are minor, and the weapon involved is licensed. It reaffirms the principle that non-compoundable offences under Section 307 IPC can be quashed in the interest of justice to prevent abuse of the process of law, provided the factual matrix justifies such relief.
Bottom Line:
Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR on basis of settlement - Even where FIR includes Section 307 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act, High Court may exercise powers under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 Cr.P.C. if injury is simple, weapon is licensed, parties have voluntarily settled dispute, possibility of conviction appears remote and trial has not commenced.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code 1860 Sections 307, 506, 34; Arms Act 1959 Section 27; Criminal Procedure Code 1973 Section 482; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 Section 528
Priya Sahani @ Pooja v. State (NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2991115
