Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 February, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 29 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 18304 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
MADAN SINGH S/O SHRI JASWANT SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM
BEEJANAGRI, TEHSIL BAROD, AGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MS . PRATIBHA VERMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR AGAR MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER THE STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH UJJAIN DIVISION (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. EXECUTIVE/ DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AGAR
MALWA, DISTRICT AGAR MALWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI A.S.PARIHAR - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. With consent heard finally.
2. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.05.2022 (Annexure P/2)
passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain affirming the order dated
09.03.2021 passed by the Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, District Agar
Malwa whereby his application for renewal of Arms License
No.DM(SJR)/30/2006 had been rejected on the ground that two criminal cases
have been registered against him vide Crime No.31/2019 and Crime
No.149/1989.
3. As per the petitioner, he holds the arms license as aforesaid which
was valid up to 31.12.2020. Prior to expiry of the license period, he made an
application before the District Magistrate, Agar Malwa for renewal of the
license. By order dated 09.03.2021 the same was rejected on the ground of
registration of two cases against him as aforesaid. The said order has been
maintained in appeal preferred by the petitioner by holding that a criminal case
vide Crime No.31/2019 under Sections 341, 342, 323, 506, 34 of the IPC has
been registered against him and that earlier also a criminal case vide Crime
No.145/1989 was registered against him under Sections 279, 336 of the IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case registered
against the petitioner vide Crime No.149/1989 had come to an end a long time
ago. The petitioner had been acquitted in the aforesaid offence.
5. It is further submitted that in the subsequent case registered against
the petitioner vide Crime No.31/2019 he has been acquitted on the basis of a
compromise having been recorded between the complainant and the petitioner
by order dated 30.01.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Agar. It is
submitted that only the fact of registration of the aforesaid cases against the
petitioner has been taken into consideration while passing the impugned orders.
However the fact of his acquittal in the aforesaid cases has not been
considered. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been involved in
any other criminal case and has been holding the Arms License without causing
any disturbance to the public peace, hence the impugned orders are illegal.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that the
impugned orders are perfectly just and legal. Since two cases were registered
against the petitioner under various Sections of the IPC, respondents 1 and 2
are justified in refusing to renew the Arms License. It is however not disputed
by him that petitioner has been acquitted in the aforesaid criminal cases as
contended by the petitioner.
7. The petitioner was granted the Arms License in the year 2006 i.e.
subsequent to the date of his acquittal in the case registered vide Crime
No.145/1989 meaning thereby that the fact of registration of the criminal case
against the petitioner was already taken into consideration at the time of
issuance of the Arms License in his favour. Rejection of application of
petitioner for renewal of that license only on the ground of registration of that
very criminal case against him is hence apparently unjustified. Moreover it is
seen that in the other crime number also the petitioner has been acquitted. In the
impugned orders only the fact of registration of the criminal cases against the
petitioner has been taken into consideration and not the fact of acquittal of the
petitioner therein. The impugned orders thus are required to be reconsidered.
8. As a result, the impugned order dated 04.05.2022 (Annexure P/2)
passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain and the order dated
09.03.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate,
District Agar Malwa are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the
District Magistrate, Agar Malwa to consider the application of the petitioner for
renewal of his Arms License afresh by taking into consideration the fact of his
acquittal in the criminal cases registered against him as aforesaid. The petitioner
is also directed to produce a copy of both the aforesaid orders/judgments
before the District Magistrate for consideration of his application for renewal of
his Arms License.
9. The District Magistrate shall also take into consideration the
decision of this Court in the matter of Badshah @ Taj Mohammad Vs. State
of M.P. and another reported in 2007 (4) M.P.L.J. 527.
10. With the aforesaid direction, the instant petition stands allowed and
disposed off. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on merits of the case.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
