Point of Law: Arms Act would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore these offences are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent as well as for the respondent No. 2.

2. This is an application, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C,praying for quashing of the FIR dated 16.12.2022, registered as Itanagar P.S. Case No. 301/2022, under Section 336 IPC read with Section 27(1)/30 of Arms Act and the subsequent proceeding of the case.

3. It is stated that the present petition has been filed jointly by the accused/petitioner No. 2 and the complainant/petitioner No. 1 in connection with above referred case, on the account of mutual amicable settlement between the parties vide Deed of Mutual Settlement, dated 26.12.2022.

4. It is stated that on 16.12.2022 the information was received from the control room Itanagar that both the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 was arguing and quarreling in the resident of father of the petitioner No. 2 and on arrival of the police personnel it has come to know that there was a tussle between the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and during the tussle the petitioner No. 2 took out his registered pistol and fired in the air. In fact, both the petitioners were close friends since their childhood and on the day of the incident they went to Hollongi Festival at Hollongi and then both of them took alcohol and they reached at the house of the petitioner No. 2 and on the request made by the petitioner No. 1, the petitioner No. 2 showed his license pistol to his friend i.e., the petitioner No. 1. Thereafter, as insisted by the petitioner No. 1, the petitioner No. 2 fired in the air from his license pistol and thereby the petitioner No. 2 refused to give him the pistol due to which hot argument started between them and followed by tussle between the petitioners and then out of anger the petitioner No. 1 informed about the quarrel to the police control room and accordingly Itanagar police personnel came and took the accused/petitioner No. 2 to the police station and arrested him.

5. Accordingly, Itanagar police station case No. 301/2022 under Section 336 IPC read with Section 27(1)/30 of Arms Act was registered against the petitioner No. 2 and also seized the license pistol from the petitioner No. 2. The arm which was used by the petitioner No. 2 is a country made 32 Bore Pistol and valid arm license issued by the Itanagar Magistrate, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo, Arunachal Pradesh. The arm was accordingly seized by the police personnel from the petitioner No. 2 during the investigation. The petitioner No. 2 was arrested by the police only on the basis of wrong information given by the petitioner No. 1 who was at the intoxicated state and when the petitioner No. 1 came to know that his friend i.e., the petitioner No. 2 is in custody only for his wrong information he regretted and went to Itanagar police station and also tried to withdraw the FIR which was refused by the police personnel as the case was already been registered under non-compoundable Sections.

6. Both the petitioners have mutually settled the matter in presence of the witnesses vide Mutual Agreement dated 26.12.2022, executed before the Execution Magistrate, Itanagar Capital Complex, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. In pursuant to the said mutual agreement both the petitioners jointly filed the present petition praying for quashing of the FIR which is registered as Itanagar P.S. Case No. 301/2022 under Sections 336 IPC read with Sections 27(1)/30 of Arms Act and the subsequent proceeding thereto.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is a license gun of the petitioner and thus, the Section 27(1) of Arms Act is not attracted nor the Section 30 of the said Act is attracted against the petitioner No. 2. As the matter has already been settled amicably, the chance of conviction of the petitioner No. 2 is remote and bleak even if the proceeding is allowed to be continued. Rather, it will be an abuse of the process of law