Driver Clicking Selfies With Licensed Firearm Doesn't Make Owner Liable Under Arms Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes FIR

"In the present case neither there is any instance nor even allegations that the weapon found in possession of Vikas was handed over with an intention to commit an illegal act. Thus, the element of mens rea, too, is missing in the present case." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a licensed firearm owner cannot be prosecuted under the Arms Act, 1959, merely because their employee photographed themselves with the weapon.

A bench of Justice Surya Partap Singh observed that clicking photographs with a weapon lying in a house does not amount to the "delivery" of the firearm to an unauthorised person under the Act, especially when the essential element of criminal intent is entirely absent.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The case originated when the driver of the petitioners—a prominent political figure and his son—clicked photographs of himself posing with their licensed revolvers and posted them on social media. Based on these photographs, the police registered an FIR against both the driver and the weapon owners under the Arms Act. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the quashing of the FIR, arguing that they were valid licence holders and the prosecution was motivated by political vendetta.

LEGAL ISSUES

The primary question before the court was whether the act of an employee clicking photographs with an employer's licensed firearm constitutes the offence of delivering arms to an unauthorised person under Section 29(B) of the Arms Act. The court was also called upon to determine whether a prosecution under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Act could be sustained against valid licence holders without any allegation of illegal acquisition or possession.

COURT'S OBSERVATIONS

The court first examined the charges under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, which penalises the acquisition or possession of firearms in contravention of Section 3. The bench noted that the prosecution's own case rested on the foundational fact that the petitioners were the legal, licensed owners of the revolvers in question. The court emphasised that there was no allegation whatsoever that the petitioners possessed the weapons illegally, thereby rendering the charge fundamentally legally flawed. "In the present case the entire prosecution case no where shows that there is any allegation against the petitioners that they had acquired, in their possession or carried any firearm or ammunition in violation of Section 3 of Arms Act."

Turning to the charge under Section 29(B) of the Arms Act, which criminalises the delivery of arms to an unauthorised person, the court scrutinised the driver's disclosure statement to the police. The bench observed that the driver explicitly admitted to clicking the photographs while the weapons and cartridges were merely lying on a bed in the petitioner's bedroom. The court reasoned that actual physical transfer is a prerequisite for this offence, and merely taking a photograph of a static object without taking control of it does not fulfill the statutory requirement of delivery by the license-holder. "Since the above-mentioned photographs no where shows that the weapons were in actual physical possession of accused Vikas and the case of the prosecution itself is that the photographs were clicked when the weapons were lying inside the bedroom on the bed, the question of delivery of weapon by the license-holder, i.e. petitioners, to the main accused, namely Vikas, does not arise at all."

The court further delved into the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, noting that criminal intent is indispensable for establishing guilt in such statutory offences. The bench highlighted that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any illicit purpose behind the driver's brief access to the weapons. Without evidence that the firearms were handed over to commit an illegal act, the court found the criminal proceedings entirely unsustainable. "In the present case neither there is any instance nor even allegations that the weapon found in possession of Vikas was handed over with an intention to commit an illegal act. Thus, the element of mens rea, too, is missing in the present case."

"The abovementioned fact-situation supports the claim of the petitioners that on account of political vendetta the present FIR has been slapped against the petitioners."

Addressing the petitioners' claims of malice and targeted harassment, the court observed a glaring disparity in the police investigation. The bench pointed out that the driver had also photographed himself with a 12-bore gun belonging to his maternal uncle, yet the police chose not to prosecute the uncle, offering no justification for this differential treatment. Taking judicial notice of the first petitioner's status as a prominent opposition leader and the registration of the FIR just months before a general election, the court concluded that the police action was tainted by a discriminatory attitude. Relying on the landmark Supreme Court guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the court ruled that the proceedings were manifestly instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. "Thus, it is apparent in the present case, that a discriminatory attitude has been adopted by the Investigating Agency and there is no justification for the same."

The court concluded that the allegations in the FIR, even when taken at their face value, failed to constitute any offence under the Arms Act against the legal owners of the weapons. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners, terming the prosecution a clear abuse of the process of law.

Date of Decision: 06 March 2026