Shahnawaz Khan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 19942 of 2022 Judgement Reserved on 12.08.2025 Judgement Delivered on 08.09.2025 Court No. - 33 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶2Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner inter-alia with the prayer to quash the order dated order dated

30.11.2021 passed by Respondent no. 2/Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi in Case No. 01049/2020 (Computerized Case No. C202014000001049) (Shahanwaz Khan vs. State) under Section 18 of Arms Act, 1959 and order dated 13.10.2020 passed by Respondent No. 3/District Magistrate, Jaunpur in Case No. 00675/2020 (Computerized D202014360000675) (State vs. Shahnawaz Khan) under section 17(3) of Arms Act, 1959.

¶3Pleadings have already been exchanged between the parties.

¶4It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is having firearm license No.469/Khetasarai Jaunpur and the aforesaid license of the petitioner was cancelled only on the ground that one criminal case i.e. Case Crime No.51/2020 under Sections 147, 188, 323, 427, 504 & 506 IPC, is pending against the petitioner.

¶5In 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anurag Yadav, Shailendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shahnawaz Khan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Court.

¶6It is argued that law is well settled that mere pendency of the criminal cases or with the apprehension that the petitioner may be involved in future in any other criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of the firearms license under the Arms Act, 1959.

¶7It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as on date, there is no material available against the petitioner except certain criminal case is pending, on account of which firearm license was cancelled, hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶8It 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 a criminal case is 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.

¶9Counsel 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 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.

¶10In 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.

¶11Per contra learned Standing Counsel submits that since the petitioner is having one criminal case 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.

¶12Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶13This 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.

¶14The 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

(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."

¶15In 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).

¶16A 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.

¶17The District Magistrate 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.

¶18Insofar as the present case is concerned, the order impugned was passed by the licensing authorities cancelling the firearm license of the petitioner only on the ground that one criminal case is pending against the petitioner which is a complete violation of law laid down by this Court specially in the case of Suresh Singh Yadav & Amar Singh (supra) in which it is held that mere pendency of the criminal cases is not sufficient ground to cancel the firearm license.

¶19In this view of the matter, the Respondent no. 2/Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi in Case No. 01049/2020 (Computerized Case No. C202014000001049) (Shahanwaz Khan vs. State) under Section 18 of Arms Act, 1959 and order dated 13.10.2020 passed by Respondent No. 3/District Magistrate, Jaunpur are liable to be set aside and the same are set aside.

¶20The petition is allowed.

¶21The District Magistrate, Jaunpur/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. (Prakash Padia,J.) September 8, 2025 saqlain

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad