BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. MC NO. 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

ROHIT SARAF …PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE, NCT OF DELHI …RESPONDENT

PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE, 1973, SEEKING NECESSARY DIRECTIONS FROM

THIS HON’BLE COURT TO QUASH FIR BEARING NO. 54 OF 2019

DATED 11.02.2019 REGISTERED AT POLICE STATION I.G.I

AIRPORT, NEW DELHI UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE ARMS ACT,

1959

AND ALSO

PRAYING TO THIS HON’BLE COURT TO PASS ANY OTHER

ORDER(S) AND DIRECTION(S) AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY

DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

OF THE CASE

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

That, the present Petition is being filed and preferred by the

Petitioner, seeking necessary orders and directions from this Hon’ble

Court to quash the present F.I.R. bearing No. 54 of 2019, dated

11.02.2019, registered at Police Station I.G.I Airport, New Delhi

under section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. True and correct copy of the

FIR bearing No.54 of 2019; dated 11.02.2019, PS IGI Airport under

Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 is annexed herewith as

ANNEXURE-A. Inter alia, the allegations levelled in the written

complaint against the Petitioner are as under:

 i. That, the Petitioner mentioned herein was travelling from

Delhi to Bhuvneshwar by Indigo Airlines, flight No 6E-2211 on

11. 02. 2019. During the scanning of the baggage for security

at 1514 hours, an image of bag under tag number 6E-545164

was appeared at level-2 and the same was then sent for

physical searches suspicion of ammunition. During, the

physical search of the baggage at 1525 hours at the Airport, it

was found that the bag belonged to the Petitioner.

ii. That, 10 ammunitions (32mm) were found in the baggage

which belonged to the petitioner and at that time the petitioner

was not in the possession of the valid documents for the

ammunitions.

iii. That owing to inability of the Petitioner to produce the

documents for the carriage of the above-mentioned

ammunition, respondent herein filed an FIR U/S 25 of the

Arms Act on 11.02. 2019 P.S. I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi.

BEFORE ADVERTING TO THE REASONS FOR FILING THE

PRESENT PETITION FOR QUASHING OF THE FIR BEFORE THIS

HON’BLE COURT, THE PETITIONER HAVE BEEN ADVISED TO

STATE CERTAIN TRUE AND CORRECT FACTS LEADING TO THE

FILING OF THE PRESENT PETITION BEFORE THIS HON’BLE

COURT:

1. That, the Petitioner is a businessman by profession and is engaged

in various businesses including business of hydro and is also one of

India’s largest manufacturer of steel and stainless steel etc. The

family of the Petitioner is one of repute and reverence in the society

at large and the Petitioner is known for his impeccable image and

repute.
2. That, father of the Petitioner namely Sh. Narayan Das Saraf who

was a renowned businessman had during his lifetime purchased two

licensed arms; i.e., one revolver .32 bore No. A98190 make Webley

and Scott and one .30 bore Rifle No. 19556 since many years. Sh.

Narayan Das Saraf left for his heavenly abode on 17.05.2017. True

and correct copy of the death certificate of Late Sh. Narayan Das

Saraf is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-B.

3. That, upon the death of Late Sh. Narayan Das Saraf, the legal

heirs of the Sh. Narayan Das Saraf on 06.11.2017 surrendered the

abovementioned licensed arms with the SHO, PS Tumsar, Thane,

Maharashtra pursuant to the directions from the Ld. District

Magistrate vide letter. True and correct copy of the letter dated

06.11.2017 whereby the elder brother of the Petitioner submitted the

licensed arms of Late Sh. Narayan Das Saraf with PS Tumsar, Thane,

Maharashtra is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-C.

4. That, the petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia,

praying that the F.I.R. No. 54 of 2019 dated 11.02.2019 under

section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered with PS IGI Airport and

all proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed by this Hon’ble

Court.

5. That, the Petitioner herein was travelling from Delhi to

Bhuvneshwar by Indigo Airlines vide flight no 6E-2211 on

11.02.2019 for his business purposes and is a frequent flyer. During

the scanning of the baggage for security reasons, at 1514 hours an

image of a bag appeared with the tag no. 6E-545164 at level -2 for

special checking on suspicion of ammunition and the same was sent

for physical searching.

6. That, during the physical search of the baggage of the petitioner, it

was found out that the baggage belonged to the petitioner which

contained 10 ammunitions (32mm) and at that time, the petitioner

was not in the possession of the valid documents which were

required for the carriage of the ammunition.

7. That, owing to the inability of the Petitioner to produce the

required documents for the carriage of the ammunition, the

respondent herein filed an FIR U/S 25 of the Arms Act on 11.02.

2019 P.S. I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi.

8. That, the petitioner was not aware about the ammunition kept

inside his bag and he was in an unconscious possession of

ammunition. The baggage and the ammunition kept inside his

baggage belonged to his Late Father Sh. Narayan Das Saraf who

owned two licensed guns which were later submitted by the

petitioner after the death of the father in the Police station in the

same year. True and correct copy of the Arms License of Late Sh.

Narayan Das Saraf is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-D.

HENCE, FEELING AGGRIEVED BY LODGING OF THE FIR AND

THE SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION THERETO IN THE PRESENT

FIR BEARING NO. 54 OF 2019, DATED 11.02.2019 REGISTERED

AT POLICE STATION I.G.I. AIRPORT, THE PETITIONER HEREIN

IS PREFERRING THE PRESENT PETITION BEFORE THIS

HON’BLE COURT FOR QUASHING OF THE IMPUGNED FIR AND

ITS CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS THERETO.

GROUNDS FOR QUASHING:

A. BECAUSE, it is respectfully submitted that the registration of

the present FIR bearing No. 54 of 2019, dated 11.02.2019,

registered at Police Station I.G.I. Airport, Delhi under section

25 of the Arms Acts, 1959 was lodged against the Petitioner on

account of false, frivolous and vague allegations to file the

present Quashing Petition before this Hon’ble Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the

Cr. P.C for quashing the FIR registered against the Petitioner.

B. BECAUSE, the Petitioner belongs to one of the most elite class

and a person of clean antecedent and the travel bag with the

petitioner belonged to the late father of the petitioner and he

had no knowledge of the ammunition in the travel bag and he

was not in the conscious possession of the ammunition.

C. BECAUSE, the Petitioner is a respectable person and petitioner’s father

owned a licensed arm and such arm had been suspended by the Petitioner

after the demise of Petitioner’s father. The Petitioner herein is a frequent

traveler and often travels within India and abroad and at no point of, on

any occasion, was the Petitioner ever involved in matter of like nature. The

possession of the bullets was not at all conscious and the Petitioner was

not aware that the bullets of the licensed was inadvertently left in the travel

bag of Late Sh. N.D. Saraf; father of the Petitioner whereas the pistol and

revolver were already deposited by the Legal heirs of Late Sh. N.D. Saraf

with the police. There was no knowledge of the Petitioner about the bullets

being left out in the travel bag of his late father, there possession was

unconscious. The Petitioner respectfully submits that the indulgence of

this Hon’ble Court is warranted in the facts of the present case as in the

absence of a guilty mind; on account of unconscious possession of the

bullets, he should not be made to face the rigors of criminal trial.

D. BECAUSE, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is very

clear with respect to the ‘conscious possession’ of arms under Section 25 of

Arms Act in GUNWANTLAL V. STATE OF M.P., (1972) 2 SCC 194 and

SANJAY DUTT V. STATE, (1994) 5 SCC 410, that:

“it is settled law that the expression ‘possession’ under Section 25 of the

Arms Act, 1959 refers to possession backed with the requisite mental

element, that is, ‘conscious possession’. Mere custody without the

awareness of the nature of such possession does not constitute an

offence under the Arms Act, 1959”.

E. BECAUSE, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SANJAY DUTT V

STATE THROUGH CBI BOMBAY (II), CRIMES 1994 (3) 344 (SC) with

specific reference to observations therein to the effect:

“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

I. BECAUSE, it is a settled law as laid down by this Hon’ble

Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that this

Hon’ble Court should exercise its power for quashing of

criminal proceedings when it is prima facie apparent that no

fruitful purpose would be served in continuation of the matter.

The Hon’ble High Court, the Petitioner respectfully submits,

would be fully entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the

conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be

an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice

would warrant and justify that the proceeding ought to be

quashed. The reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA V.

L. MUNISWAMY AND OTHERS (1977) 2 SCC 699 , wherein

inter alia observed as under:

 " In the, exercise of this whole some power, the High Court is entitled

to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the

proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the

Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to

be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in

civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public

purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to

degenerate into weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal

case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of

the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the

like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the

interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of

mere law though justice has got to be administered according to

laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making

these observations is that without a proper realization of the object

and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent

powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its

subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and

contours of that salient jurisdiction.”

J. BECAUSE, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the celebrated judgment of

STATE OF HARYANA V BHAJAN LAL, 1992, SUPP. (1) SCC 335, has

observed in Para 102 as under:

"In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various

relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of

the principles of law enunciated by this court in a series

of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary

power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under

Article 482 of the Code which have extracted and

reproduced above, we give the following categories of

cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be

 exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any

court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it

may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly

defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible

guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list

of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be

exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information

report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face

value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie

constitute any offence or make out a case against the

accused.

(2) XXX (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in

the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support

of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence

and make out a case against the accused.

(4) XXX (5) XXX (6) XXX (7) Where a criminal proceeding is

manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the

proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive

for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view

to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

K. BECAUSE, this Hon’ble High Court in the case of ANKIT

MEHROTRA V. STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI)

& ANR.: CRL.M.C. 704/2017, quashed the proceedings and

stated vide para 9 to the effect;

"9. In the instant case, the petitioner was in possession of

the cartridge however he expressed his lack of awareness

of that article. There is no material to show that the

 petitioner was conscious of his possession of the live

cartridge. Though, the ballistic report confirms it to be a

cartridge falling within the meaning of 'ammunition', the

report by itself is insufficient to point to reasonable

suspicion of petitioner's involvement in an offence which is

based on proven conscious possession. It can also be

safely inferred that the petitioner's possession of the

cartridge does not fall within the ambit of 'conscious

possession' which is a core ingredient to establish the

guilt for offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms

Act. As the prosecution has failed to prove that the

possession was 'conscious' and therefore, on the basis of

mere possession of the live cartridge the proceedings

cannot continue qua the petitioner under the Arms Act,

1959 and the same shall be quashed to secure the ends

of justice."

Reliance is also placed on the judgment of GOLAP

SAIKIA V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.; 2017 (2)

JCC 1107.

L. BECAUSE, in the instant case, it is apparent on the face of the

record that live cartridges were recovered from the check-in-

baggage of the Petitioner without there being any firearm.

Absence of firearm itself shows that the Petitioner was not having

conscious possession of the live cartridges. The recovery of

cartridges ipso facto does not prove that the petitioner had

animus possidendi particularly when the licensed arms of Late

Sh. N. D. Saraf was duly deposited with the police station soon

after the death of Late Sh. N. D. Saraf.

 9. That the present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Petitioner has no other

alternate efficacious remedy except filing the present petition

before this Hon’ble Court.

10. That, the Petitioner is duty bound to apprise this Hon’ble

Court that apart from the present case, the Petitioner was falsely

implicated in FIR No. 17 of 2016 PS. EOW, Bhubaneswar under

Section 455, 467, 468, 471, 420, 406 r/w 120-B IPC along with

Section 6 of the OPID Act, 2011. The Petitioner was falsely

implicated and therefore, he approached the Hon’ble High Court

of Orissa: Cuttack by preferring CRL. APPEAL NO. 345 of 2017

and the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa: Cuttack was pleased to

quash proceedings against the Petitioner on merits vide its order

dated 12.12.2018. True and correct copy of order dated

12.12.2018 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa: Cuttack

in Crl. Appeal No. 345 of 2017 is annexed herewith as

ANNEXURE-E. The Petitioner further submits that the against

the said order of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa: Cuttack, the

state has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by preferring a

SLP (Crl.) No.5879 of 2019 and notice of the said SLP has been

issued to the Petitioner herein.

10. That, the Annexures enclosed with the present petition are true

copies of their respective originals.

11. That the Petitioner has not filed any other Petition similar to the

present petition before this Hon’ble Court or in any other Court

or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

12. That the Petitioner seeks the permission of this Hon’ble Court to

urge any other additional ground(s), which would be made

available to the petitioner at the time of hearing of this matter.

PRAYER:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble court that in

view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, this Hon’ble Court

may graciously be pleased to:

i. Pass necessary order (s)/ direction (s) thereby quashing FIR No 54 of

2019 dated 11.02. 2019, P.S. I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi U/S 25 Arms

Act, 1959 lodged and subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom.

ii. Pass any other order or further order(s) or writ, which this Hon’ble

High Court may deem fit and proper to restrain the respondents

from any further investigations.

iii. pass any other or further order(s) or writ, which this Hon’ble High

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

case.

FILED BY

MANISHA PARMAR AND ASSOCIATES

ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONERS

101, LGF, NEW RAJDHANI ENCLAVE,

VIKAS MARG, NEW DELHI

NEW DELHI E:

manisha.parmar1025@gmail.com
DATED: 14.02.2020 M: 9999699762/ 9899585301

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. MC NO. 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

ROHIT SARAF …PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE, NCT OF DELHI …RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

AFFIDAVIT OF ROHIT SARAF S/O LATE SH. NARAYAN DAS

SARAF R/O E-5 2ND FLOOR, MAHARANI BAGH, NEW DELHI-

110025, aged about 54 years do hereby solemnly affirm and declare

as under:
1. That I am the Petitioner in the present case and being so I am

well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the

instant case and thus duly competent to swear the instant

Affidavit.

2. That the Deponent has filed the accompanying Petition under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying

for quashing of the present FIR and the contents of the

present petition has been drafted by my counsel upon my

instructions and I have gone through the same and the

contents thereof I affirm to be true and correct.

3. That the annexures annexed with the present petition are the

true copies of their respective originals.

4. That the contents of the present affidavit are true and nothing

material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this day of March 2021 that the contents

of the aforesaid Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed

therefrom.

DEPONENT