Delhi HC Quashes Case Against Family Relative Over Alleged Home Revolver Threat, Citing Settlement, No Shot Fired Or Injury

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, of an FIR alleging that he broke into the complainant’s home, threatened her husband with a firearm, and manhandled and abused her.

The police seized a loaded revolver, whose licence was found genuine; the chargesheet dropped the Arms Act charges under Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 and added Section 30.

The petitioner and complainant, who are close relatives, entered into a settlement dated 3 February 2025.

The complainant appeared before the Court, communicated through sign language, and confirmed her desire to settle; the case remained at the charge stage more than nine years after the FIR.

Section 528 of the BNSS, pari materia with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.

Under Gian Singh, the Court may quash non-compoundable offences arising from private or family disputes where the parties have settled, but must consider the nature and gravity of the offence; heinous offences and offences with serious societal impact ordinarily cannot be quashed on compromise alone.

Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, reiterates that cases predominantly civil in character, including family disputes, may be quashed upon settlement.

The Court also relied on Suresh Kumar v. State, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11824, in which offences under Section 506 IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act were quashed on compromise.

The Court acknowledged that pointing a pistol inside a home was a serious allegation, but found the case distinguishable in light of the surrounding circumstances: the dispute was between close relatives; no shot was fired and no injury occurred; the revolver was licensed and the charge was limited to contravention of a licence condition under Section 30 of the Arms Act; and the parties had voluntarily settled.

The Court also considered the passage of more than nine years and the fact that the case remained at the charge stage.

Applying the principles in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, and noting the comparable outcome in Suresh Kumar, it concluded that continuing the trial would be futile.

It directed the petitioner to pay ₹50,000 to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks and to file proof of deposit with the Registry.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.