Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 17 March, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15676 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8135 of 2024 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.10.2021 whereby the arms license of the petitioner was cancelled in the interest of public in exercise of powers under section 17(3)(b) read with section 17(3) (d) of the Arms Act.
3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was granted an arms license and subsequently, an FIR was filed against the petitioner being FIR No.414 of 2016 wherein, it was alleged that on 25.10.2016, the petitioner was alleged to have fired from his licensed weapon in a social function. The FIR was lodged against the petitioner under section 504 IPC. Subsequently, based upon the said allegation, the order impugned has been passed.
4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that no complaint was lodged, no evidence has been collected against the petitioner and the criminal trial is still pending. He places reliance on the judgment of this court in Radhey Shyam Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.; 2019(2) ADJ 744 (LB); Laddan Khan v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and Anr.; 2017(35) LCD 715 and Ghanshyam Gupta vs. State of U.P. & Ors.; 2016 (34) LCD 3035 to argue that there is no allegation of the petitioner having misuse the weapon in question. He further argues that even under section 504 IPC, the requirement is that there should intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace and no such allegation exists even in the FIR against the petitioner, as such, the cancellation of the arms license was wholly unjustified.
5. The Standing Counsel supports the order by arguing that the petitioner had misuse the weapon in a public place for which the prosecution is pending.
6. Admittedly, the case against the petitioner is still pending. Considering the law as laid down in the cases cited above, merely pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of the arms license as has been done. Following the said judgment, the order impugned dated 16.10.2021 is set aside. Directions are issued to restore the arms license of the petitioner in accordance with law.
7. The writ petition stands allowed with the said observations.
Order Date :- 17.3.2025 VNP/-