JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Ajay Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Shri P. S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vijay Shankar along-with Shri A. P. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.

2. By means of present petition, petitioner is seeking for quashing of the order dated 05.04.2021 passed by the respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Fatehpur in Case No.00743 of 2021 under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act (State Vs. Suresh Singh Yadav) and order dated 14.07.2021 passed in Appeal No.00425/2021 under Section 18 of the Arms Act by the respondent no.3 namely Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj, P.S. Hathgaon, District Fatehpur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only ground for cancellation of armed license no.2579/DM (F)/Police Station Hathgaon, District Fatehpur NP Bore Rifle No.AB02-8281 is that three criminal cases has been registered against the petitioner namely Case Crime No.236 of 2017, under Section 3/7 Essential Commodity Act, 1955 and Case Crime No.237 of 2017, under Section 3/25 Arms Act and N.C.R.No.21 of 2018, under Section 323, 504 IPC. He further submits 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 him. 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.

4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments passed by this Court in the cases of Ram Murti Madhukar vs. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998 (16) LCD-905], Ram Karpal Singh vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Ors. [2006 (24) LCD 114] and Ram Prasad vs. Commissioner and Ors. decided on 07.02.2020 in Writ-C No. 56378 of 2006, wherein it has been held 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.

5. Per contra learned Standing Counsel submits that since the petitioner is having three 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.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. In the case of Ram Murti Madhukar (supra), this Court has held in paragraph no. 8 as under :-

"(8) It is also well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of Arms Act, are not sufficient ground for passing of the order of suspension or revocation of licence under Section 17 of the Act. A reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of this Court in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt v. D. M. Almora, AIR 1993 All 291"

8. In the case of Ram Karpal Singh (supra), this Court has held as following in paragraph nos. 6 and 7, which are being reproduced hereunder:-

"6, Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the two judgments of this Court reported in 2002 ACC; Habib v. State of U.P.

7. Para 3 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:

"Para 3: The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of the license under Arrns Act, has been deal with by a Division Bench in this Court reported in Sheo Prasad Misra v. The District Magistrate, Basti and others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision reported in Mai Uddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot be in any way affect the public security or public interest and the order canceling or revoking the .licence of fire arm has been set aside. The present impugned order also suffers from the same infirmity as was pointed out by the Division Bench in the above mentioned cases. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the Division Be