The main legal point established in the judgment is that the revocation of an arms license must be based on specific reasons as outlined in the Arms Act, and the mere registration of FIRs is irrelevant for revocation.

ORDER

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral). - This is a petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 13.02.2019 (Annexure P13) passed by respondent No.3, whereby the arms license No.44-FBD-AUG-2009 and renewal No.519-R/ JCP-FBD./2012 (Annexure P-1), belonging to the petitioner has been cancelled, along with certain other prayers.

2. The case, as pleaded in the petition and as argued by the counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner is possessing arms license No.44-FBD-AUG-2009 and its renewal number is 519-R/ JCP-FBD./2012. The license of the petitioner was renewed from time to time. Ultimate renewal of the license of the petitioner is up to 10.08.2021. However, the license of the petitioner has now been cancelled by the respondents. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, and has been so pleaded in the writ petition as well, that the petitioner was alleged to be involved in three cases. The cases, basically, pertained to property disputes. The first FIR in this regard was registered as FIR No.563 dated 11.10.2015 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC and PC Act at Police Station Central Fridabad. Another FIR No.727 dated 16.07.2018 was registered under Sections 147, 149, 186, 225, 323, 332, 353 & 511 IPC. Thereafter; still another FIR No.51 dated 24.01.2019 was registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 & 120-B IPC. The last FIR No.51 dated 24.01.2019 was registered at the instance of respondent No.4, with whom the petitioner is having specific property dispute. However, even before getting the FIR registered against the petitioner, the respondent No.4 had made a complaint to the police claiming therein that the petitioner could use his weapon against him and therefore, the arms license of the petitioner be cancelled. Upon such complaint, the competent authority had requisitioned a report from the local police. The Police reported registration of the cases against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice for cancellation of his arms license. The petitioner did file reply to the said notice and explained before the authorities that the matters involved in the cases, were, basically, the property disputes. It was further clarified that in none of the incidents the use of weapon of the petitioner was involved. Hence, while submitting that there was no basis for cancellation of the arms license, it was prayed that the show-cause notice be filed and the license of the petitioner be not cancelled. However, the authority passed a totally innocuous order and cancelled the license of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred the statutory appeal. However, even the said appeal has been dismissed by the authority.

3. While arguing the case, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in FIR No.563 dated 11.10.2015, only a property dispute is involved. The petitioner is already on anticipatory bail in that case. There is not even an allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner ever used any weapon in the incident involved in the above said FIR. So far as the FIR No.727 dated 16.07.2018, is concerned, it has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that during the investigation, the police themselves have found the petitioner to be innocent and the final report before the Magistrate has already been filed in this regard, which contains the stipulation that the petitioner has been found to be innocent in that case. So far as the last FIR No.51 dated 24.01.2019, is concerned, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that even this FIR was purely a property dispute with respondent No.4. The FIR was got registered just to misuse the process of the law and to put an unnecessary pressure on the petitioner. However, even in that case the petitioner was released on anticipatory bail. Ultimately, respondent No.4 effected a compromise with the pe