Islam vs State Of Up And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 12952 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Islam vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 24 November, 2025

Author: Arun Kumar

Bench: Arun Kumar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:210439
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
WRIT - C No. - 223 of 2024   
 
   Islam    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of Up And 2 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Mohd. Ishraque Farooqui, Shailendra   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 9
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.       

1. Heard Sri M.I. Farooqui, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders of respondent nos.2 and 3 dated 26.10.2023 and 23.09.2020, respectively, cancelling the firearm license of the petitioner.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to registration of one criminal case bearing Case Crime No.37 of 2015, under Sections 353 and 379 IPC, a police report was submitted to the licensing authority to cancel the firearm license of the petitioner. On the basis of the police report, the firearm license of the petitioner was suspended by the order dated 27.09.2019 and a show cause notice was issued to him. Pursuant to the reply submitted by the petitioner, the licensing authority by his order dated 23.09.2020, cancelled the firearm license of the petitioner on the ground that as the petitioner was obstructing in installation of the transformer which amounted to obstruction in the government work which is a serious offence, therefore, there is possibility of using his firearms in future, which will be detrimental to public security.

4. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by order of respondent no.2, dated 26.10.2023, upholding the observations and findings of the licensing authority.

5. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not having any intention to interfere with any government work, and the allegation of stealing a tractor was not established, and also the charge sheet filed against the petitioner is only under Sections 353 and 147 IPC. He has further contended that in the alleged incident, the firearms possessed by the petitioner was not used nor there is any allegation to that effect. The findings of the respondent nos.2 and 3 that he may use his firearms in future is based on conjectures and surmises.

6. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Mewalal @ Kunnu Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, 2014 (7) ADJ 162 (LB). The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-

"12. Perusal of the record further reveals that on account of pendency of criminal cases the District Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner is a person of criminal nature and is involved in criminal activities. However, mere involvement in a criminal case cannot, in any way, affect the public security or public interest.

13. In the case of Rama Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (29) LCD 1045, it has been held that a license cannot be refused/suspended/cancelled merely because there is an ordinary breach of law and order.

14. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are being reproduced herein under:

"8. Relying upon Ganesh Chandra Bhatt v. District Magistrate Almora; AIR 1993 All 291, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has held in clear words that a licence can not be refused/suspended/cancelled merely because there is an ordinary breach of law and order.

9. 'Public peace' or 'public safety' do not mean ordinary disturbance of law and order public safety means safety of the public at large and not safety of few persons only. Before passing of the order in exercise of power conferred under Section 17(3) of the Act the Licensing Authority is under an obligation to apply his mind to the question as to whether there was eminent danger to public peace and safety involved in the case.

10. In Ram Murli Madhukar v. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998(16) LCD 905], this Court has held that licence can not be suspended or revoked on the ground of public interest (Janhit).

11. It is well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of arms act are not sufficient grounds for passing the order of suspension or revocation of licence under Section 17 (3) of the Act. The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. The District Magistrate, Basti and others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision of Masiuddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest. The law propounded in the said decisions has been subsequently followed in Habib v. State of U.P. 2002 ACC 783, Ram Sanehi v. Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda and another."

15. Further, in the case of Hiramani Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (29) LCD 829, it has been held that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of fire-arm license. The relevant para 8 reads as under:

"8. This Court in the case of Ashok Rao v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (68) accused applicants. 441 while considering the authority to be exercised under section 17 of the Indian Arms Act has taken the view that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be ground for cancellation of fire-arm license unless and until finding is returned by the authority concerned that possession of fire arm has the tendency of threatening public peace and public safety."

16. In the case of Rajendra Singh v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and others, 2011 (29) LCD 1041 'Public Peace' or 'Public Safety' has been defined. The relevant paras 6 and 7 read as under:

"6. 'Public peace' or 'public safety' do not mean ordinary disturbance of law and order public safety means safety of the public at large and not safety of few persons only. Before passing of the order in exercise of power conferred under Section 17(3) of the Act the Licensing Authority is under an obligation to apply his mind to the question as to whether there was eminent danger to public peace and safety involved in the case.

7. It is well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of arms act are not sufficient grounds for passing the order of suspension or revocation of licence under Section 17 (3) of the Act. The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court Sheo Prasad Misra v. The District Magistrate, Basti & others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision of Masiuddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest. The law propounded in the said decisions has been subsequently followed in Habib v. State of U.P. 2002 ACC 783."

7. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has contended that as the petitioner has been charge-sheeted under Section 147 IPC for rioting, therefore, possession of firearm license with the petitioner is not in the interest of public security.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. The proceeding for cancellation of the firearm license of the petitioner was initiated due to the pendency of a criminal case against him under Sections 353 and 379 IPC. The observation of the licensing authority that as the petitioner tried to stop the government official from carrying out public work, therefore, there is possibility of his using his firearms in future, is based on no evidence. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner was involved in any other criminal activity apart from the aforesaid case registered against him.

10. In view of the case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court has consistently held that mere pendency of a criminal case or apprehension of abuse of Arms Act are not sufficient grounds for passing the orders of suspension or revocation of license under Section 17(3) of the Act.

11. In view of above, writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 23.09.2023 passed by respondent no.3 and 26.10.2023 passed by respondent no.2 are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar to re-examine the issue and take a fresh decision in accordance with law after inviting fresh police report, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(Arun Kumar,J.)

November 24, 2025

Shahroz