Back
1996 Supreme(All) 871
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
G. P. MATHUR, D. C. SRIVASTAVA
RASHID AZIZ - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
CRI. M. W. P. 2293 Of 1996
Decided On : 08/08/1996
Jagdish Singh Sengar
An order passed by a District Magistrate cancelling arms licenses and directing the police to lodge an FIR against the petitioners for allegedly obtaining arms licenses through forged entries in the Arms Register is not an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offense to the Officer In-charge of a police Station as contemplated by Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and cannot be registered as a case.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - FIR - REGISTRATION - ORDER OF DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - INTERPRETATION - CANCELLATION OF ARMS LICENCES - FORGED ENTRIES - INQUIRY COMMITTEE REPORT - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - SAME TRANSACTION - MULTIPLE ACCUSED - PUBLIC INTEREST - WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
Fact of the Case:
A series of writ petitions were filed challenging the registration of a first information report (FIR) based on an order passed by the District Magistrate, which cancelled arms licenses and directed the police to lodge an FIR against the petitioners for allegedly obtaining arms licenses through forged entries in the Arms Register. The petitioners contended that the order was not an information to the police officer regarding the commission of a cognizable offense as contemplated by Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and that the FIR was wrongly registered.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order passed by the District Magistrate was not an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offense to the Officer In-charge of a police Station as contemplated by Section 154, CrPC, and it was wrongly registered as a case. The court further held that the order of the District Magistrate was passed under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act and it was never intended that the order itself should be treated as information regarding the commission of a cognizable offense to a police officer.
Issues: 1. Whether the order passed by the District Magistrate was an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offense to the Officer In-charge of a police Station as contemplated by Section 154, CrPC? 2. Whether the FIR was wrongly registered? 3. Whether the order of the District Magistrate was passed under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the order passed by the District Magistrate was not an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offense to the Officer In-charge of a police Station as contemplated by Section 154, CrPC, because: a. The order was passed only for the purpose of cancelling the arms licenses of the persons mentioned in the list. b. The order did not show that any information was sought to be given to an Officer In-charge of the Police Station regarding the commission of a cognizable offense. c. The direction at the bottom of the order, instructing the Inspector In-charge of Police Station, Colonelganj to write or scribe a first information report against the then Arms Clerk and the persons mentioned in the list, was not complied with. 2. The court held that the FIR was wrongly registered because the order passed by the District Magistrate was not an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offense to the Officer In-charge of a police Station as contemplated by Section 154, CrPC. 3. The court held that the order of the District Magistrate was passed under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act because: a. The order was passed in exercise of the District Magistrate's powers under Sub-Section (3) of Section 17 of the Arms Act. b. The reasons for passing such an order were given in compliance with Sub-Section (5) of Section 17 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court issued a writ of mandamus to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the FIR. The court also made it clear that it was not examining the validity of the order dated 13-6-1996 passed by the District Magistrate by which their arms licenses were cancelled and that it was open to the petitioners to avail of such remedy as is available to them under law to assail the validity of the order.
( 1 ) THE points involved in this bunch of writ petitions is similar and therefore they are being disposed of by a common order.
( 2 ) THE three principal prayers made in the writ petitions are (1) that a writ of certiorari be issued for quashing the first information report dated 13-6-1996 which was registered as Case Crime No. 700 of 1996 under Sections 419, 420, 470 and 471, I. P. C. of police Station Coloneganj, Allahabad (2) that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid F. I. R. and (3) that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad not to compel the petitioners to deposit their weapons.
( 3 ) FROM the short counter-affidavit filed by Sri Jagdish Prasad Yadav, Arms Clerk, Collectorate Allahabad in writ petition No. 2287 of 1996, it transpires that the Senior Superintendent of Police of another district namely Ambedkar Nagar sent a letter dated 5-4-1996 to the District Magistrate, Allahabad making inquiry regarding the arms licences of certain persons who were arrested in connection with a criminal case in his district. The City Magistrate/officer In-charge Arms, after inquiry, came to the conclusion that the entries made in the Arms Register, maintained in the office of the District Magistrate, Allahabad, showing grant of arms licences in favour of the aforesaid persons who had been arrested in district Ambedkar Nagar were forged and fictitious. The District Magistrate, Allahabad, then by his order dated 16-4-1996 constituted a three member committee consisting of Sri K. S. K. Dwivedi, A. D. M. (City), Sri K. N. Singh A. D. M. (Admn.) and Sri S. K. Singh, City Magistrate, Officer Incharge, Arms to hold an inquiry. The Committee after considering relevant document submitted a detailed report dated 13-6-1996 to the District Magistrate. After receipt of the report the District Magistrate passed an order on the same day i. e. , on 13-6-1996 and as it has a bearing on the controversy involved, it is being reproduced in toto. The order of the District Magistrate was communicated to the Inspector In-charge Police Station, Colonelganj, who treating it as a first information report, registered a case as crime No. 700 of 1996 under Sections 419, 420, 470 and 471, I. P. C. The first information report is a verbatim reproduction, from beginning to the end, of the above quoted order. After the words Zilladhikari Allahabad which is at the bottom of the order one line has been added which reads as follows. "licence Panjiyon men pratham dristaya pai gai shastra licenso Ki Pravistiyon Ki Sunchi. " Translated into English it would read-list of the entries regarding arms licences in the arms Register which were prima facie found to be forged. Then there is a long list which contains about 346 names. The names of the person; number of the licence and its date and the nature of weapon for which the licence was issued is mentioned therein.
( 4 ) THE recital in the body of the order passed by the District Magistrate is to the effect that the report dated 13-6-1996 and the accompanying list made by the inquiry committee which had been entrusted the job of holding inquiry regarding the making of illegal entries in the Arms Register by the order dated 16-4-1996 was perused. According to the report, the entries in the Arms Register regarding grant of arms licences to the persons mentioned in the list from page 1 to 22 were found to be prima facie forged. The Committee had made recommendation for cancelling the arms licences and for lodging first information report under the relevant Sections of the Penal Code against the then Arms Clerk and all the persons mentioned in the list for having entered into a criminal conspiracy and for making forged entries in the Arms Register and thereby fraudulently and illegally obtaining arms licences. Then it is mentioned that in view of Supreme Court judgment in U. P. Junior Doc
