Shubham v. The State of Maharashtra

appln-1775-2025.odt(1)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1775 OF 2025Shubham s/o Dinkar Sarnikar, Age: 25 Years, Occ.: Agril.,R/o.: Saraswati Colony, Mali Chowk, Ambejogai, Ta. : Ambejogai, Dist. Beed....ApplicantVERSUS1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Officer Incharge, Ambejogai City Police Station, Dist. Beed2) Kisan Ashruba Gholve, Age- 46 Years, Occ- Service as Police Head Constable at Ambejogai City Police Station, Dist. Beed...Respondents…Mr. K.P. Rodge, Advocate for Applicant.Mr. K.B. Jadhavar, APP for Respondent/State....CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 16, 2026FINAL ORDER :-1.The applicant seeks quashment of First Informant Report(in short ‘F.I.R.’) dated 20.06.2022 in Crime No.271 of 2022registered with Ambejogai City Police Station for offence punishableunder Section 135 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Section 4 and25 of Arms Act, 1959. The applicant further seeks quashment ofconsequential proceedings in R.C.C. No.194 of 2022 pending beforelearned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Ambejogai, District Beed.2.The investigation was set in motion on the basis ofinformation given by respondent no.2/police constable attached to appln-1775-2025.odt(2)Ambejogai City Police Station alleging that while his team waspatrolling, they received a secret information that applicant/accusedwas carrying dangerous weapon in Toyota Etios Car. At about 14.30hours, police party reached to spot. They noticed car on spot. Theyinterrogated with applicant and in open search of car found a sharpdangerous weapon like knife with iron handle hidden under driver’sseat. The aforesaid information was culminated into registration ofF.I.R. for offence punishable under Section 4 and 25 of Arms Act andSection 135 of Maharashtra Police Act against applicant. Oncompletion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed and atpresent, R.C.C. No.194 of 2022 is pending before learned JudicialMagistrate First Class at Ambejogai. 3.On 21.07.2025, while issuing notice to respondents, thisCourt observed that charge sheet filed against applicant does notcontain notification as contemplated under Section 4 of Arms Act. Therefore, clarification was sought as to existence of suchnotification/sanction. Looking to past experience, this Court directedDSP, Beed or higher officer to file his affidavit clarifying aforesaidaspect. In response to aforesaid direction, Mr. Navneet Kumar Kanwat, Superintendent of Police, Beed filed his affidavit stating that there isnotification dated 06.09.1980 issued under Section 4 of Arms Act. However, it is not applicable to Beed District. He specifically admitsthat inspite of his sincere persuasion with higher authorities, he could appln-1775-2025.odt(3)not found notification covering District Beed. At this stage, referencecan be given to Section 4 of Arms Act which reads thus : “4. Licence for acquisition and possession of arms of specifieddescription in certain cases.― If the Central Government is ofopinion that having regard to the circumstances prevailing inany area it is necessary or expedient in the public interest thatthe acquisition, possession or carrying of arms other than fire-arms should also be regulated, it may, by notification in theOfficial Gazette, direct that this section shall apply to the areaspecified in the notification, and thereupon no person shallacquire, have in his possession or carry in that area arms ofsuch class or description as may be specified in thatnotification unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued inaccordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules madethereunder.”4.Plain reading of aforesaid provision depicts that CentralGovernment is empowered to issue notification in public interestregulating acquisition, possession or carrying of arms other thanfirearms. Section 25 of Arms Act prescribes for punishment forpossessing arms prohibited under notification. In present case, inabsence of notification issued under Section 4 of Arms Act, possessionof so-called arms by applicant would not constitute offencepunishable under Section 25 of Arms Act for breach of Section 4.Similar issue has been dealt with by Division Bench of this Court incase of Vilas Dhondu Sapkale Vs. The State of Maharashtra andAnother in Criminal Application No.2489 of 2024 decided on30.08.2024, and it has been observed that in absence of notification, appln-1775-2025.odt(4)prohibiting possession of particular arms or regulating possession ofparticular arms, prosecution for commission of offence under Section25 would not be possible. 5.In present case, admittedly, there is no notification forDistrict Beed regulating possession of arms alleged to have beenpossessed by applicant. So far as offence under Section 135 ofMaharashtra Police Act is concerned, it deals with contravention ofrules or directions issued under Section 37, 39 or 40. However, inabsence of prohibitory orders passed by competent authority and itsbreach, no offence can be made out punishable under Section 135.The charge sheet in present case do not contain any such directionissued by competent authority regulating possession of arms. Inresult, in light of observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case ofState of Haryana and Others Vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and Others reported inAIR 1992 SC 604, case is made out to exercise inherent powers andquash F.I.R. and consequential proceedings pending against applicant.6.In result, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause(B).(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)Mujaheed//