State of U.P. and Another v. Party

3. Brief facts of the case are that, an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against three accused persons, namely, Dr. Parvez Usmani, Javed and Salman being Case Crime No. 181/2020 under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Dhampur, District Bijnor. The alleged injured persons, namely Fariyad, Hazra Khatoon, Zeenat, and Nida, were medically examined at the Community Health Centre, Dhampur, and supplementary X-ray reports were also prepared. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet under Section 307 I.P.C. against the named accused and under Section 30 of the Arms Act against the Revisionist. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the accused persons, against which the Revisionist filed Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and later a discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court rejected the discharge application of the Revisionist vide order dated 21.07.2023. Hence, the present Revision. 2 CRLR No. 2574 of 2024

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Revisionist that the investigation and witnesses' statements do not disclose any allegation that the Revisionist handed over his licensed firearm to the co-accused Javed Usmani or Dr. Parvez Usmani. On the contrary, the accused themselves have stated that Dr. Parvez Usmani took the firearm from the Revisionist’s house without his permission or knowledge and used it to fire upon the injured. The case diary also does not show any violation of licence conditions or provisions of the Arms Act by the Revisionist. It merely reflects that the licensed weapon was misused by the co-accused. Therefore, the basic ingredients of Section 30 of the Arms Act are wholly absent.

5. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 21.07.2023 has been passed mechanically without considering the grounds raised in the discharge application or examining the applicability of Section 30 of the Arms Act. The learned Trial Court has failed to peruse the case diary in its correct perspective and has erroneously concluded that an offence is made out even though, assuming the prosecution case to be true, no evidence exists to show entrustment or consent by the Revisionist. The rejection of the discharge application with the observation that the grounds will be considered at trial reflects non-application of judicial mind.

6. It is also submitted that the prosecution against the Revisionist is actuated by mala fides, arising from past conflict between the Revisionist and senior police officials relating to the 20.12.2019 incident during the NRC-CAA demonstrations. The charge sheet under Section 30 has been filed with ulterior motive, despite the absence of any material to show deliberate breach of licence conditions. When the prosecution itself admits that the co-accused took the firearm without the Revisionist’s permission, no offence under Section 29(B) or Section 30 of the Arms Act is made out, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the Revisionist has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Tarlochan Singh @ Rana Vs. State of Punjab: 2022 INSC 356. 3 CRLR No. 2574 of 2024

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the submission of learned counsel for the Revisionist and submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the discharge application filed by the Revisionist. The discharge application did not contain any good ground to be entertain and the Revisionist could also not assert, as to why he has been falsely roped in the present case, but being confronted by the Court, he could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

9. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the material available on record as well as judgments relied upon, it shows that, an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against three accused persons, namely, Dr. Parvez Usmani, Javed and Salman being Case Crime No. 0181/2020 under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Dhampur, District Bijnor. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted under Section 304 I.P.C. against the named accused and under Section 30 of Arms Act only against the accused-Revisionist merely on the ground that his licensed gun was used in the alleged incident. None of the witnesses has stated about the presence of the Revisionist at the place of occurrence rather, there are evidences in case diary that the licensed gun of the Revisionist was used without his permission or knowledge.

10. In the case law Tarlochan Singh(Supra), the hon'ble Apex Court has held that for a conviction under Sections 29 and 30 of the Arms Act concerning the unauthorized transfer or negligent violation of license conditions for a firearm, the prosecution must establish the accused's knowledge or willful intention of the firearm's misuse or contravention. The Court found that mere ownership of a licensed firearm used by a co- accused in a crime is not sufficient to prove the license holder's guilt specially when there was no evidence that the owner willingly parted with the weapon for the purpose of the crime or failed to report its theft.

11. The Trial Court while deciding the discharge application must determine if the evidence, taken at face value, establishes the basic elements of the alleged offence, connecting the accused to the crime. It should also consider that discharge is appropriate if the material raises only suspicion, not grave suspicion. It should also consider the grounds including lack of evidence, baseless accusations, essential ingredients of 4 CRLR No. 2574 of 2024 the offence missing, or procedural flaws and whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Trial Court should act as a gatekeeper, ensuring only cases with a strong foundation (grave suspicion) proceed to trial, preventing frivolous prosecutions.

12. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law discussed above, present Criminal Revision is Allowed.

13. The impugned order dated 21.07.2023 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to Court concerned for taking decision afresh in accordance with law and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tarlochan Singh(Supra) after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned in accordance with law.

14. The observation made herein are limited only for the purpose of deciding the instant Revision Petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case during the trial. December 4, 2025 ADY (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)

3. Brief facts of the case are that, an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against three accused persons, namely, Dr. Parvez Usmani, Javed and Salman being Case Crime No. 181/2020 under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Dhampur, District Bijnor. The alleged injured persons, namely Fariyad, Hazra Khatoon, Zeenat, and Nida, were medically examined at the Community Health Centre, Dhampur, and supplementary X-ray reports were also prepared. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet under Section 307 I.P.C. against the named accused and under Section 30 of the Arms Act against the Revisionist. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the accused persons, against which the Revisionist filed Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and later a discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court rejected the discharge application of the Revisionist vide order dated 21.07.2023. Hence, the present Revision. 2 CRLR No. 2574 of 2024

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Revisionist that the investigation and witnesses' statements do not disclose any allegation that the Revisionist handed over his licensed firearm to the co-accused Javed Usmani or Dr. Parvez Usmani. On the contrary, the accused themselves have stated that Dr. Parvez Usmani took the firearm from the Revisionist’s house without his permission or knowledge and used it to fire upon the injured. The case diary also does not show any violation of licence conditions or provisions of the Arms Act by the Revisionist. It merely reflects that the licensed weapon was misused by the co-accused. Therefore, the basic ingredients of Section 30 of the Arms Act are wholly absent.

5. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 21.07.2023 has been passed mechanically without considering the grounds raised in the discharge application or examining the applicability of Section 30 of the Arms Act. The learned Trial Court has failed to peruse the case diary in its correct perspective and has erroneously concluded that an offence is made out even though, assuming the prosecution case to be true, no evidence exists to show entrustment or consent by the Revisionist. The rejection of the discharge application with the observation that the grounds will be considered at trial reflects non-application of judicial mind.

6. It is also submitted that the prosecution against the Revisionist is actuated by mala fides, arising from past conflict between the Revisionist and senior police officials relating to the 20.12.2019 incident during the NRC-CAA demonstrations. The charge sheet under Section 30 has been filed with ulterior motive, despite the absence of any material to show deliberate breach of licence conditions. When the prosecution itself admits that the co-accused took the firearm without the Revisionist’s permission, no offence under Section 29(B) or Section 30 of the Arms Act is made out, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the Revisionist has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Tarlochan Singh @ Rana Vs. State of Punjab: 2022 INSC 356. 3 CRLR No. 2574 of 2024

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the submission of learned counsel for the Revisionist and submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the discharge application filed by the Revisionist. The discharge application did not contain any good ground to be entertain and the Revisionist could also not assert, as to why he has been falsely roped in the present case, but being confronted by the Court, he could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

9. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the material available on record as well as judgments relied upon, it shows that, an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against three accused persons, namely, Dr. Parvez Usmani, Javed and Salman being Case Crime No. 0181/2020 under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Dhampur, District Bijnor. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted under Section 304 I.P.C. against the named accused and under Section 30 of Arms Act only against the accused-Revisionist merely on the ground that his licensed gun was used in the alleged incident. None of the witnesses has stated about the presence of the Revisionist at the place of occurrence rather, there are evidences in case diary that the licensed gun of the Revisionist was used without his permission or knowledge.

10. In the case law Tarlochan Singh(Supra), the hon'ble Apex Court has held that for a conviction under Sections 29 and 30 of the Arms Act concerning the unauthorized transfer or negligent violation of license conditions for a firearm, the prosecution must establish the accused's knowledge or willful intention of the firearm's misuse or contravention. The Court found that mere ownership of a licensed firearm used by a co- accused in a crime is not sufficient to prove the license holder's guilt specially when there was no evidence that the owner willingly parted with the weapon for the purpose of the crime or failed to report its theft.

11. The Trial Court while deciding the discharge application must determine if the evidence, taken at face value, establishes the basic elements of the alleged offence, connecting the accused to the crime. It should also consider that discharge is appropriate if the material raises only suspicion, not grave suspicion. It should also consider the grounds including lack of evidence, baseless accusations, essential ingredients of 4 CRLR No. 2574 of 2024 the offence missing, or procedural flaws and whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Trial Court should act as a gatekeeper, ensuring only cases with a strong foundation (grave suspicion) proceed to trial, preventing frivolous prosecutions.

12. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law discussed above, present Criminal Revision is Allowed.

13. The impugned order dated 21.07.2023 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to Court concerned for taking decision afresh in accordance with law and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tarlochan Singh(Supra) after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned in accordance with law.

14. The observation made herein are limited only for the purpose of deciding the instant Revision Petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case during the trial. December 4, 2025 ADY (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)