Shiv Mangal Singh v. State of U.P.), under Section
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 49277 of 2017 Shiv Mangal Singh State Of U.P. And 4 Others Versus .....Petitioner(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Tanisha Jahangir Monir, Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Kushwaha Court No. - 6 Judgement Reserved on 08.09.2025 Judgement Delivered on 26.09.2025 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
Legal Reasoning
8. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the law laid down by this Court in following judgements :- A. Ram Murti Madhukar vs. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998 (16) LCD-905], B. Ram Karpal Singh vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Ors. [2006 (24) LCD 114] C. Jay Bhagwan Kanodia Vs. The Commissioner and another Writ C 3 WRIC No. 49277 of 2017 No.3439 of 2011 decided on 26.07.2012 D. Ram Prasad vs. Commissioner and Ors. (Writ-C No. 56378 of 2006) decided on 07.02.2020 E. Suresh Singh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 (2) ADJ 158 and 2022 SCC Online All 2023. F. Amar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ C No. 48730 of 2015) reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 2049. 9. In the aforesaid judgements, it has been held by this Court that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of misuse of arms are not sufficient grounds for passing the order of suspension or revocation of licence under Section 17 of the Act. 10. Per contra learned Standing Counsel submits that since the petitioner is having certain criminal cases registered against him, public peace and safety are in danger, therefore, the order has rightly been passed cancelling the fire arms license of the petitioner. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. This Court in the case of Jay Bhagwan Kanodia Vs. The Commissioner and another decided on 26.07.2012 and Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 28.03.2019 has held that fire arms licence can only be cancelled if it falls within sub Section (3) of Section 17 of the Act. 13. The provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Arms Act provides various conditions for variation/cancellation or suspension of the arms licence, which is reproduced as under:- "17.Variation, suspension and revocation of licences- 3.The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence- (a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act ; or 4 WRIC No. 49277 of 2017 (b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or (c)if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it;or (d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or (e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence." 14. In the case of the Suresh Singh Yadav (supra) and Amar Singh (supra), this Court has specifically held that mere pendency of criminal cases or apprehension of misuse of arms are not sufficient grounds for suspension or cancellation of firearm licence under Section 17 of the Act. The same view was also taken by the different Benches of this Court in the case of Ram Murti Madhukar (supra), Ram Karpal Singh (supra) and Ram Prasad (supra). 15. A licence may be cancelled, inter alia on the ground that it is necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety' to do so. The District Magistrate has not recorded a finding that it was necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to revoke the licence. The mere existence of enmity between a licensee and another person would not establish the "necessary" connection with security of the public peace or public safety. There should be something more than mere enmity. There should be some evidence of the provocative utterances of the licensee or of his suspicious movements or of his criminal designs and conspiracy in reinforcement of the evidence of enmity. It is not possible to give an exhaustive list of facts and circumstances from which an inference of threat to public security or public peace may be deduced. The District Magistrate will have to take a decision on the facts of each case. But in the instant case there 'is nothing in his order to indicate that it was necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to cancel the licence of the petitioner. Mere enmity is not sufficient. 16. The District Magistrate, Mainpuri did not take into consideration the provisions of Section 17 at all. His order gives an impression of having been made in a mechanical manner. The cancellation of a licence destroys a valuable privilege of a free citizen of a free country. The District Magistrate ought to fairly consider the facts and circumstances of each case and should also bear in mind the provisions of Section 17 of the Arms that the law does not give them a free hand. 5 WRIC No. 49277 of 2017 17. Insofar as the present case, is concerned, from perusal of the record, it transpires that due to pendency of two criminal cases against the petitioner, firearm license has been cancelled and now the situation has been changed as the petitioner has been acquitted by the Trial Court in one of the case and in another case final report has been submitted, in view of the above, Court is of the opinion that the ground of cancellation does not survive. 18. In this view of the matter, the order dated 26.07.2017 passed by the respondent No.2/Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra and the order dated 21.03.2017 passed by the respondent No.3/District Magistrate, Mainpuri are liable to be set aside and the same are set aside.
Arguments
1. Heard Ms. Tanisha J. Monir, learned counsel alongwith Sri Vinod Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner inter-alia with the prayer to quash the order dated 21.03.2017 passed by the respondent no.3- District Magistrate, Mainpuri in Case No. D2013014900650, under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 and order dated 26.07.2017 passed by the respondent no.2-Commissioner Agra Division, Agra in Appeal No. 623 of 2017 (Shiv Mangal Singh Vs. State of U.P.), under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959. 3. Pleadings have already been exchanged between the parties. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is having firearm license No. 610 of a Rifle No. A.B 01-5587and the aforesaid license of the petitioner was cancelled only on the ground that two criminal cases i.e. case crime No. 23 of 2013, under section 147, 148, 149, 353, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and case crime No. 32 of 2013, under section 467, 468, 471, 420 I.P.C. are pending against the petitioner. 2 WRIC No. 49277 of 2017 5. In the counter affidavit, the basic ground taken against the petitioner is that due to pendency of the aforesaid criminal cases, the license of the petitioner has been cancelled. It is argued by learned Standing Counsel that order impugned are just and valid and does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. In paragraph 7 of the rejoinder affidavit details of the aforesaid cases as on today is mentioned which reads as follows:- A. A false first information report has been lodged by the Area Lekhapal in case crime No. 23 of 2013, under section 147, 148, 149, 353, 504 and 506 I.P.C. against the petitioner and his other family members on 08-03- 2013, the investigation officer has not fairly investigate the aforesaid case and filed false charge sheet No. 63 of 2013 on 25-07-2013 and there is no forge entry made by the petitioner or his family members in revenue record. The trial of the aforesaid case has been finalized by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Mainpuri after giving full opportunity to the procuration and the trail court has not found any offence against the petitioner and other co-accused and acquitted the petitioner and his brothers, vide judgment and order dated 26-07-2024 copy of which is appended as Annexure No. R.A. 1 to the rejoinder affidavit. (B) Case crime No. 32 of 2013, under section 467, 468, 471, 420 I.P.C. Police Station MMIS Aunchha, District Mainpuri, lodged by the Revenue Inspector Shri Krishna Chandra Singh against the petitioner and 5 others on 30-03-2013, so far case crime no.32 of 2013 is concerned, police investigated the matter and the allegations were found false, hence submitted final report on 17-04-2014, which is already appended as Annexure No. 3 with the writ petition. 7. It is further argued that there is no material on record to show that armed license granted to the petitioner has been misused or there is any danger to public safety except the allegations that criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. It is further argued that license can only be cancelled only to reasons assigned to Section (3) of Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Decision
19. The petition is allowed. 20. The District Magistrate, Mainpuri/respondent no.3 is directed to pass fresh order in the matter taking into consideration observations made herein above within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. September 26, 2025 Arti (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad