Allahabad High Court
Vikram Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 10 August, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:162226
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25650 of 2021
Petitioner :- Vikram Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shahabuddin
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr.Shahabuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the respondent no.2/Commissioner Division Saharanpur as well as the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the respondent no.3.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who had firearms license bearing no.7098, was served with show cause notice dated 17.09.2019 on the ground that there was a first information report registered against the petitioner bearing Case Crime No.125 of 2002, under Section 332, 353, 504 IPC, Police Station-Meerapur, District-Muzaffar Nagar. On the aforesaid notice, the petitioner has submitted his reply, however, without considering the reply, fire arm license of the petitioner has been cancelled by the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar vide order dated 31.01.2020. Against the aforesaid cancellation order, the petitioner filed an appeal, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 04.01.2021. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere pendency of a criminal case was no ground to cancel the petitioner's fire arm licence. He submits that at the time when the order dated 31.01.2020 cancelling the fire arm licence was passed, the criminal case was pending but after the order dated 31.01.2020, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case by judgment and order dated 07.02.2022 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.4/Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar and in view of the petitioner's acquittal, the appellate authority ought to have set aside the order of cancellation. The petitioner has no previous criminal history and in Crime Case No. 125 of 2002, the fire arm was not involved. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Amar Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others reported in 2022 (152) AllLR 328.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that once the petitioner has been found to be implicated in criminal case, it was sufficient enough for the District Magistrate to record his satisfaction and cancel the license. However, learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the factual position that the petitioner has been acquitted in the said criminal case.
I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the records.
The question whether the mere registration of a criminal case can form a valid basis to cancel a fire arm license has been considered by this Court in the case of Ram Vilas vs. State of U.P. and another; Neutral Citation no.-2023:AHC:139246 and it has been held that merely because criminal cases have been registered against a man, is no ground to cancel his fire arm licence. It is not that possession of a fire arm by such a person by itself is a threat to public peace or public safety, or as inferred in this case by the District Magistrate, not in public interest.
After perusal of the records, this Court finds that the petitioner's licence was cancelled by the concerned District Magistrate on the ground of pendency of criminal case against him. The petitioner was later on acquitted in the criminal case by order dated 07.02.2022. A perusal of the order of acquittal does not show the use of fire arm. After acquittal, the very basis of the order of cancellation vanished. The finding of the concerned District Magistrate as affirmed by the Commissioner, that it was not in the interest of public peace and the public security that the licence remained with the petitioner/licencee, is not based on any evidence/material, except the police reports which in turn, were in view of the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner. On mere apprehension expressed in the impugned orders that the petitioner would misuse the fire arm and would extend threat to the persons of the weaker section of the society, the arm licence could not be cancelled.
Accordingly, for the reasons recorded by this Court in the case of Ram Vilas (Supra), the impugned order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the respondent no.2/Commissioner Division Saharanpur as well as the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the respondent no.3 are hereby quashed.
However, quashing of the impugned orders would not result in revival of the petitioner's fire arm license automatically. The petitioner may move an application before the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar alongwith relevant document as well as acquittal order and certified copy of this order within three weeks from today. If any such application is filed before the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar/licensing authority, the same shall be processed and decided expeditiously strictly in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of production of such application.
Needless to say, the licensing authority shall not refuse the arm license on the ground of the impugned orders, which has been quashed by this order.
With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 10.8.2023
Jitendra/-
