Madhya Pradesh High Court
Karan Singh vs State Of M.P on 6 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16804
1 WP-3683-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 3683 of 2012
KARAN SINGH
Versus
STATE OF M.P AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vineet Saxena - Advocate appeared for petitioner.
Shri Man Singh Jadon- Government Advocate appearing on behalf of
Advocate General.
ORDER
1.The instant writ petition takes exception to the order dated
31/05/2011 passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby, arms license granted
to the petitioner was revoked. Challenge is also made to the order dated
04/01/2012 passed by the appellate authority, whereby, appeal preferred by
the petitioner against the order of revocation of arms license was rejected.
2 . The facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are that the
petitioner was found to be involved in crime No. 08/2000 registered at police
station Raun, District Bhind for commission of offence under section 147,
148, 149, 336 & 171 of IPC r/w section 135 & 136 of Representation of
People's Act, 1951 and, therefore, the report was submitted by the
Superintendent of Police, District Bhind to the respondent No. 2 that the
continuation of arms license to the petitioner may not be in the interest of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16804
2 WP-3683-2012
security of public peace and public safety and accordingly recommended for
cancellation of arms license to the petitioner.
3 . On receipt of said recommendation, notice was issued by the
respondent No. 2 to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why
the arms license issued in his favour may not be cancelled. The reply to the
show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner stating therein that his
implication in the criminal case in question is false. The offences are not yet
proved against him and, therefore, requested that the show cause notice
issued against him be filed and the arms license issued in his favour be
continued.
4 . Respondent No. 2 after taking into consideration the reply submitted
by the petitioner formed an opinion not to continue arms license in favour of
the petitioner since possibility of its misuse cannot be ruled out and it would
not be in the interest of security of public peace and public safety and would
have adverse affect on the safety of the society and, accordingly, revoked the
arms license of the petitioner vide order dated 31/05/2011. The appeal
preferred by the petitioner against cancellation of the arms license was
dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 04/01/2012.
5 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere registration of
FIR or implication in the criminal case may not be sufficient ground for
rejection of the arms license. The arms license was granted in favour of the
petitioner for his personal protection on the recommendation made by the
competent authority. The petitioner is in need of continuation of arms license
and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. In support of his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16804
3 WP-3683-2012
contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
order passed by the Single Bench of High Court of Uttar Pradesh main seat
at Allahabad in Writ (C ) No. 41897/2015 ( Shamsher vs. State of U.P. and 2
Ors.). Learned counsel further submits that vide judgment dated 18/03/2016,
he has been acquitted from the crime No. 08/2000 as none of the prosecution
witnesses have supported the story of the prosecution and, therefore, in view
of subsequent acquittal of the petitioner, he is entitled for restoration of his
arms license.
6 . On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the writ
petition and submits that power has been exercised by the Collector /
respondent No. 2 in terms of section 17 (3) (b) of Arms Act, 1959 which
deals with subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority and in case
licensing authority is satisfied and deems it necessary that for security of the
public peace or for public safety arms license is required to be revoked,
appropriate orders can be passed after hearing the person concerned. In the
instant case, subjective satisfaction of the respondent No. 2 has been
recorded in the order dated 31/05/2011. The appeal preferred by the
petitioner has been rejected by the appellate authority. The acquittal of
petitioner from the criminal case being subsequent event does not vitiate the
order passed by the respondent No. 2. Even, otherwise, perusal of the
acquittal judgment dated 18/03/2016 reveals that since prosecution witnesses
have turned hostile, the benefit has been extended to the petitioner and by
placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed
in the case of Ramkumar Sharma vs. State of M.P. and Ors. reported in 2012
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16804
4 WP-3683-2012
(2) MPHT 398 (DB) the learned counsel for the state submits that there is no
infirmity in the orders impugned. Accordingly, the petition filed by the
petitioner deserves to be dismissed.
7 . No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
8 . Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material
available on record.
9 . A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mohd. Haroon Vs.
State of M.P. and Others , decided on 27.09.2022 in W.P. No. 3710/2021 has
held as under:-
"12. On perusal of the impugned order, it can be seen that the
licence has been suspended on the ground of the pendency of
criminal case against the petitioner. The crux of the matter is that
whether the petitioner has a right to possess the fire arm. The
scheme of the act discloses that grant of arms licence is a privilege
extended by the State to the petitioner concerned. In the impugned
order, the licensing authority has not recorded any satisfaction for
suspending the licence. Merely due to registration of the case, the
licence cannot be suspended. Nothing is on record to show that the
public safety affecting public tranquillity or going to the affected
because of the petitioner."
10. Even otherwise, it is clear from the provisions of Section 17 of the
Arms Act, the District Magistrate can vary, revoke or suspend the Arms
Licence, if he is satisfied, then the continuation of the same is not in the
interest of security of the public peace or for public safety.
11. In the present case, although the District Magistrate has not
recorded any such satisfaction but even assuming that because of registration
of a criminal case, the District Magistrate was of the view that there is a
possibility of use of the weapon in future thereby jeopardizing the security of
the public peace or public safety, then the next question for consideration is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16804
5 WP-3683-2012
as to whether the said satisfaction still holds field or it has lost his efficacy
on account of any subsequent event?
12. The petitioner has produced a copy of judgement dated 18.03.2016
passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lahar, District Bhind in R.T. No.
1235/2006 to show that the petitioner has already been acquitted in a Regular
Trial arising out of Crime No. 08/2000.
13. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that in light of the
subsequent events, the satisfaction recorded by the District Magistrate in
revoking the licence does not hold field and accordingly, the orders dated
04.01.2012 and 31.05.2011 are hereby quashed.
14. The matter is remanded back to the District Magistrate, District
Bhind to decide the question of revokation / restoration of Arms Licence No.
M.P./B.H.D./L/1/70/2004.
15. Although, this Court is aware of the fact that the Arm Licence
might have lost its life but still this matter is being remanded back for the
simple reason that in case if the revokation of Arm Licence is held to be bad
in law, then even if the licence had lost his life during the pendency of this
petition, still the petitioner may move an application for renewal of his
licence.
16. Under these circumstances, it is directed that the District
Magistrate shall reconsider the aspect and for doing so shall also take into
consideration as to whether any further offence was allegedly committed by
the petitioner or not and if that is so, then the District Magistrate, District
Bhind shall be well within its jurisdiction to consider the subsequent conduct
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16804
6 WP-3683-2012
of the petitioner also.
17. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of four months
from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
18. The petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Durgekar
