Amit Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 3431 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40450 of 2011
 
Petitioner :- Amit Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Pramod K. Gupta
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Though the petition as drafted by the petitioner discloses very simple matter but has turned out to be a totally different and distinct matter.

3. The petitioner has sought a mandamus commanding the respondents to release/return his Revolver no. FG 40381 and decide his representation dated 27th May 2011.

4. The simple facts narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner possesses a firearm license no. 2580/ Police Station Deoband/04/Saharanpur and possesses Revolver no. FG 40381. There was some incident on 10th March 2008, wherein the petitioner used his weapon in self defence, which resulted in lodging an F.I.R. being case crime no.115 of 2008, under Sections 307,323 and 504 IPC and case crime no. 115/A/2008, under Section 307, 323 and 504 IPC at P.S. Deoband District Saharanpur. Due to involvement of the petitioner in the said criminal case, the Station House Officer vide his report dated 31st March 2008 recommended action against the petitioner under Section 17 of the Arms Act. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14th August 2008 which was replied by him. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Saharanpur passed order dated 17th October 2008 deferring the proceedings till the criminal case no. 115/2008 (supra) is decided by Competent Court. The firearm license in the meanwhile was placed under suspension and the petitioner's weapon was directed to remain in the custody of the police.

5. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order which was partly allowed by Commissioner vide order dated 14th January 2009. He remanded the matter to Collector to decide the matter once again.

6. The District Magistrate thereafter passed order dated 20th April 2011 revoking suspension of firearm license of petitioner and directing for release of his weapon on the condition that petitioner shall not misuse the same etc.

7. It is said that despite the aforesaid order of Collector, the police has not released weapon though the petitioner has made several representations.

8. In these circumstances, this Court required the learned Standing Counsel to inform as to why the police is not complying with the order of Collector.

9. Since the respondents defaulted in showing a quick response in the matter, this Court passed an order on 26th July 2011 summoning respondents no. 3 and 4 as to why Collector's order dated 28th April 2011 has not been complied. Pursuant thereto the said officers have filed their counter affidavit, which has been sworn by Deepak Ratan, Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur. It is stated therein that petitioner's aforesaid Revolver is involved in two criminal cases(supra). In one, the petitioner is co-accused and therefore, the said weapon is a case property. In the aforesaid matter charge sheets have also been filed by the police. Charge sheet no. 145 of 2008 has been filed by police in case crime no.115 of 2008 and the matter is pending before the competent court for taking cognizance. Knowing it well that the weapon is a case property in the pending criminal case and can not be released without an order of competent court of law, the petitioner submitted an application before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Deoband on 25th May 2011 requesting for release of the weapon.

10. The Court summoned report from concerned police and thereafter passed an order on 27th May 2011 rejecting said application. It is said that weapon was seized on 16th April 2008 in presence of petitioner and this fact is well within knowledge of the petitioner.

11. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner knew all these facts and also was well aware that his application for release of the weapon has been rejected by the criminal court where the criminal case is pending, yet these material facts has been concealed. This writ petition has been drafted in a manner as if only the Collector was competent to direct for his release and despite his order, police in an illegal manner is not releasing the weapon. It is contended by learned standing counsel that the petitioner is not only guilty of concealment of material facts but also of filing false affidavit before this Court that the police has illegally detained the weapon, knowing it well that the said detention is in a criminal matter and release thereof is not permissible unless the competent court permits, which request has also been rejected by the criminal court, yet all these facts were not disclosed in the writ petition.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to reply these facts but he chose not to file any rejoinder affidavit. On the contrary he could not dispute these facts that the weapon is a case property, Criminal case was pending where the petitioner has moved an application for release in May 2007 but the same was rejected on 27th May 2011.

13. Normally when complaint is made to this Court against the action of the State or its authorities which is likely to endeavour life and liberty of a citizen, being a constitutional authority, this Court finds its obligation to immediately come to rescue of such citizen for protection. But I am dismayed that this process of the Court is now being misused frequently by mischievous and unscrupulous persons like the petitioner.

14. Knowing well that unless the order for release of the weapon is passed by the competent criminal court where the matter is pending, the weapon in question can not be released to the petitioner by the police yet the police has been dragged in this litigation making palpably false allegation & by not disclosing these facts.

15. The facts nowhere disclose clearly that the weapon in question was seized by the police as a case property in the aforesaid criminal case and there was no occasion requiring the State authorities to explain why the weapon is not being released despite the order of the Collector since the Collector's order would not have resulted in such release as the matter is within the domain of competent criminal court.

16. This is really unfortunate. The Court is more concerned since now the people are showing audacity of such concealment and misrepresentation in much regular way. This approach and attitude is likely not only to erode smooth functioning of administration of justice but may also obstruct the system. Such an attempt and endeavour on the part of these unscrupulous persons like the petitioner has to be nipped in bud so that such disease may not spread further.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that he himself was not aware of the fact that the petitioner has filed an application in the criminal court for release of the weapon which was rejected and he fairly stated that such conduct of the petitioner is indefensible.

18. A conduct by a person, which has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial proceedings also amounts to commission of a criminal contempt. Filing of such frivolous petition by concealing materials facts not only is the tendency causing obstruction in due course of judicial proceedings but is also the tendency to obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. The process of court can not be permitted to be abused nor majesty of law be allowed to be made a mockery by such acts or conduct on the part of the litigant. Any one, who makes an attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to file such false affidavits or by filing frivolous writ petition concealing material fact etc. himself is liable to face serious consequences like criminal contempt or prosecution for filing a false affidavit etc. The conduct of such litigant aims at striking a blow at the rule of law. No court can ignore such conduct, which has tendency to shake public confidence in judicial institution. The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so also to be enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. Any one who takes recourse to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice.

19. The Apex Court in Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (1995) 3 SCC 757, while castigating a similar condemnable conduct of the parties observed that tendering of false affidavit by way of an affidavit his offence within the ambit of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 and the wrong doer must be punished. Initially, I intend to refer the matter for initiating criminal contempt against the petitioner in the light of the above discussion but considering the apology tendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the fact that he is a little younger in carrier, I am refraining myself from initiating such proceedings but then can not refrain from imposing exemplary cost upon the present petitioner for the conduct he has shown in this matter.

20. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with an exemplary cost, which is quantified to Rs. 50,000/-.

Order Date :- 3.8.2011

Abhishek Sri.