Uttarakhand High Court
(Under Section 482 Of Cr.P.C.) vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 9 April, 2025
2025:UHC:3054
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 2042 OF 2019
(Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.)
Arshad Ali ...Applicant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand & another ...Respondents
Presence:
For the Applicant: Mr. Mohd Safdar, learned counsel.
For the State/Respondent No1: Mr Vipul Panuli, learned AGA.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Rajendra S. Azad, learned counsel through V.C.
H on'ble Ashish N a it ha ni, J ( Ora l)
1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the
order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Case No. 1694 of 2016 (Case
Crime No. 206 of 2016), whereby the release application of the
applicant for his licensed N.P.B. Revolver 32 Bore No. F.G. 21363 was
rejected.
2. The applicant also seeks quashing of the judgment and order
dated 29.01.2018 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Roorkee, District Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 636 of 2016,
which dismissed the revision filed by the applicant against the
aforementioned order dated 16.12.2016.
3. The applicant further prays for appropriate orders for the release
of his licensed N.P.B. Revolver 32 Bore No. F.G. 21363 in his favour.
4. The facts of the case, as emerging from the record, are that an
FIR bearing No. 206 of 2016 was registered at Police Station Kotwali
Civil Lines, Roorkee, District Haridwar against the applicant and others
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 307, 452, 504, 506 IPC
and Section 30 of the Arms Act.
2025:UHC:3054
5. According to the allegations in the FIR lodged by respondent No.
2 (Parvez Alam), the applicant and other co-accused persons had
assaulted him and other victims, including Aslam, Kaushar, and Intezar,
causing injuries to them. It was specifically alleged that the applicant
had fired shots from his licensed revolver during the incident.
6. During the course of investigation, the licensed N.P.B. Revolver
32 Bore No. The police seized F.G. 21363 belonging to the applicant.
The weapon was sent for forensic examination to determine whether it
had been used in the commission of the alleged offence.
7. After the investigation was completed, a charge sheet was filed
against the applicant and other co-accused persons. Subsequently, the
applicant filed an application before the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, seeking release of his licensed revolver
on the ground that it was his valuable property and could get damaged
if kept in the Malkhana without proper maintenance.
8. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, vide
order dated 16.12.2016, rejected the release application after
considering the police report and other materials on record.
9. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant filed Criminal Revision
No. 636 of 2016 before the Sessions Court, which was subsequently
transferred to the court of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee.
The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment and order
dated 29.01.2018, dismissed the revision petition, thereby affirming the
order of the Magistrate.
10. Hence, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the applicant for quashing the aforesaid orders and seeking
release of his licensed revolver.
11. The learned counsel for the applicant, Mohd. Safdar submits that
the applicant had been falsely implicated in the criminal case and was
not even present at the place of the alleged incident. It is contended that
2025:UHC:3054
the applicant is a respectable person who had been the Chairman of
District Cooperative Society Nagla Imarti (Dhandera), Roorkee, and
subsequently, his wife was elected as the Chairperson of the same
cooperative society.
12. It is further argued that the applicant had obtained the licensed
revolver for the safety and security of himself and his family, and he
had never misused the weapon. The license was duly renewed from
time to time and was valid till 09.03.2017.
13. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that respondent
No. 2 (Parvez Alam) harboured political rivalry with the applicant and
has falsely implicated him in the criminal case. It is submitted that the
role assigned to the applicant in the FIR was that he had fired shots in
the air, which is factually incorrect, as the applicant was not even
present at the place of occurrence.
14. The learned counsel for the applicant places heavy reliance on the
forensic report dated 23.09.2016, wherein it was mentioned that no
definite opinion could be given about the time of firing from the
weapon, and it was also reported that the alleged cartridges recovered
from the place of incident were not fired from the said revolver. It is
argued that the courts below have misread and misinterpreted the
forensic report to the detriment of the applicant.
15. It is further submitted that the weapon is a valuable property of
the applicant and is lying in the malkhana without proper maintenance,
which may cause damage to it. Moreover, the applicant had given an
undertaking before the courts below that he would produce the weapon
whenever required during the trial.
16. The learned counsel for the applicant also argues that the
applicant may face a threat to his life and property due to political
rivalry, and in the absence of a weapon, he would be unable to protect
himself and his family. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned orders be
2025:UHC:3054
quashed and the licensed revolver be released in favour of the
applicant.
17. The learned Government Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1
opposes the application by submitting that the involvement of the
applicant in the commission of the alleged crime has been established
during the investigation through the statements of witnesses recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., including the statements of the complainant
(Parvez Alam), eyewitnesses, and the injured persons.
18. It is contended that the involvement of the applicant is further
established from the medical reports of the injured persons and the
statements of the doctors who examined them. It is argued that the
licensed revolver of the applicant is an important piece of evidence and
case property, which needs to be produced before the trial court during
the course of the trial.
19. The learned Government Advocate further submits that the
weapon is safely kept in the malkhana of the concerned police station,
and there is no possibility of its damage as alleged by the applicant. It is
also submitted that if the weapon is released in favour of the applicant,
there is every possibility that it may be misused, considering the serious
allegations against him.
20. It is argued that both the courts below have rightly rejected the
release application after considering all the relevant facts and
circumstances of the case, and there is no illegality or perversity in the
impugned orders warranting interference by this Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C.
21. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 (Parvez Alam) adopts
the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate and adds
that the present application is nothing but an attempt by the applicant to
frustrate the course of justice. It is submitted that the application
deserves to be dismissed with costs.
2025:UHC:3054
22. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have
carefully perused the pleadings and the materials available on record.
23. The primary issue that falls for consideration in this application is
whether the impugned orders passed by the courts below, rejecting the
release application of the licensed revolver belonging to the applicant,
warrant interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
24. It is well-settled that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be
exercised sparingly and with circumspection to prevent abuse of the
process of court or to secure the ends of justice. The inherent power
should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High
Court should be loath to interfere with the orders passed by the courts
below in the exercise of their legitimate jurisdiction, particularly at the
interlocutory stage.
25. In this case, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Roorkee, rejected the release application after considering the police
report, which stated that the weapon in question may be misused if
released in favour of the applicant. The revision filed by the applicant
was also dismissed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Roorkee, after considering all the relevant materials.
26. From the materials on record, it appears that there are serious
allegations against the applicant regarding the use of the licensed
revolver during the commission of the alleged offence. The weapon is
an important piece of evidence and case property in the ongoing
criminal case.
27. The contention of the applicant that he was not present at the
place of occurrence and has been falsely implicated in the case is a
matter of defence that can be raised during the trial. This Court, while
exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot go into the
detailed examination of the evidence or the merits of the case.
2025:UHC:3054
28. The reliance placed by the applicant on the forensic report does
not conclusively prove his innocence. The report merely states that no
definite opinion could be given about the time of firing from the
weapon, and the alleged cartridges recovered from the place of incident
were not fired from the said revolver. This does not rule out the
possibility of the weapon having been used during the incident,
especially considering the statements of the witnesses and the injured
persons.
29. The applicant's apprehension regarding the damage to the weapon
due to a lack of maintenance is not substantiated by any concrete
evidence. The weapon is kept in the safe custody of the police in the
Malkhana, and it is presumed that proper care is taken for its
maintenance.
30. The submission of the applicant that he has given an undertaking
to produce the weapon whenever required during the trial does not, by
itself, entitle him to the release of the weapon. The courts below have
considered this aspect and have still found it appropriate to reject the
release application, keeping in view the serious nature of the allegations
and the importance of the weapon as a piece of evidence.
31. The contention regarding the threat to the life and property of the
applicant due to political rivalry is also not substantiated by any
concrete evidence. If the applicant apprehends any threat, he can
approach the concerned authorities for necessary protection in
accordance with the law.
32. I find no perversity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by
the courts below. The orders are based on sound reasoning and proper
appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case. No case is made
out for interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
33. In view of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the
considered opinion that the present application under Section 482
2025:UHC:3054
Cr.P.C. lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. The applicant has
failed to make out a case for quashing the impugned orders or for the
release of his licensed revolver.
34. It is important to note that the criminal case against the applicant
is still pending trial. The licensed revolver in question is an important
piece of evidence and case property, which needs to be preserved for
production during the trial. The release of the weapon at this stage may
hamper the fair trial of the case.
35. The courts below have duly considered all the relevant factors
while rejecting the release application. There is no illegality, perversity,
or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders that would warrant
interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
36. I also note that, as per the documents on record, particularly the
counter affidavit filed by the State, the weapon has been kept in safe
custody in the Malkhana of the concerned police station. There is no
concrete evidence to suggest that the weapon is at risk of damage due
to a lack of maintenance.
37. The applicant's concern regarding the protection of himself and
his family can be addressed through appropriate legal channels. The
mere fact that the applicant's licensed revolver has been seized as case
property does not leave him without legal remedies to ensure his safety
and security.
38. Moreover, this court notes that as per the record, the criminal
case against the applicant has progressed significantly, and the trial is
ongoing. Interference at this stage by releasing the weapon would not
be appropriate and may prejudice the fair trial of the case.
ORDER
It is well-settled that the inherent powers of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and
only in rare and exceptional cases where the Court is satisfied that
2025:UHC:3054
intervention is necessary to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure
the ends of justice.
In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court illustrated the following categories wherein the High
Court may legitimately invoke its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to
quash criminal proceedings:
(i) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if taken at
face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(ii) where the allegations in the FIR and other materials accompanying
it do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by the
police under Section 156(1) Cr.P.C.;
(iii) where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR or complaint and
the evidence collected in support thereof do not disclose the
commission of any offence and do not make out a case against the
accused;
(iv) where the allegations in the FIR are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused;
(v) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(vi) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide
intention and/or has been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive
for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him
due to private or personal grudge; and
2025:UHC:3054
(vii) where a proceeding is initiated for an ulterior purpose or to harass
the accused rather than to bring him to justice.
The present case does not fall within any of the above
categories warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court
finds no exceptional or compelling ground for the exercise of such
extraordinary jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
It is, however, clarified that the observations made in this order
are only for the purpose of deciding this application and shall not
influence the trial court in any manner while deciding the main case on
merits.
Ash ish N a it h a n i, J
Dated:09.04.2025
NR/
