JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Mushir Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri A.K. Sand, learned A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State.

2. During the course of argument Shri A.K. Sand, learned A.G.A.-I submits that during investigation Section 216 I.P.C. has been added.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be permitted to amend the prayer clause. He may do so during the course of the day.

4. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 04.03.2023 in Case Crime No. 42 of 2023, under Sections 3/4/25 Arms Act, Section 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act 1908 and Section 216 I.P.C., Police Station Sarai Akil, District Kaushambi and for a direction to the respondent authorities not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned first information report.

5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no offence has been made out against the petitioners. None of the petitioners herein were found or arrested on the spot and one Abdul Kawi has already surrendered before the C.B.I. Court. It is submitted that as per the first information report some arms and ammunition were found in the premises which were seized by the Police and the first information report was lodged under the provisions of Sections 3/4/25 Arms Act and Section 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act 1908. It is submitted that the provisions of Section 22 of the Arms Act have not been complied with at the time of making search and seizure and therefore, it cannot be said that any offence has been made out against the petitioners. On facts it is submitted that one of the co-accused was attending his service and other arguments on the merit of the case regarding Will dated 05.10.2020 by which Abdul Kawi was disowned by his father with all ties broken and that he was living separately. Other factual arguments have also been made in defence. It is submitted that the procedure for the seizure has not been adopted and the walls of the premises were damaged by JCB.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that since the offence in the present case under Section 25 Arms Act is punishable with two years imprisonment, as per Part II of the First Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is a non-cognizable offence and only a complaint can be lodged in it and lodging of the first information report is not maintainable. It was also submitted that in respect of the offences under the Arms Act only a complaint could have been filed and therefore, the first information report could not have been registered and is not maintainable. It is also submitted that the petitioners are not absconder. They were also not harbouring any offender, therefore, offence under Section 216 I.P.C. is not made out. Submission, therefore, is that the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

7. Per contra, Shri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri A.K. Sand, learned A.G.A.-I submits that it is on the information while patrolling that one wanted criminal, namely, Abdul Kawi, who carries reward of Rs. one lac is hiding in his village, the Police had gone to his village in his search but as his house was very much inside the village, the accused wanted in Case Crime No. 34 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj and C.B.I. R.C. No. 02/S/2016 case no. 20432 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 27 Arms Act as well as present accused have absconded and illegal Arms and ammunition were found in the premises. Submission, therefore, is that due procedure was adopted by the Police Authorities in this search and seizure and there was no illegality in search and seizure which was made as per the provisions of the Arms Act read with the provisions of Cr.P.C. It was further