An individual holding a licensed firearm cannot be prosecuted under the Arms Act for misuse unless there is a violation of licensing provisions.

O R D E R

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.233/2022 of Moozhiyar Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 452 , 294 (b), 323, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 20 and 27(1) of Arms Act .

2. The prosecution case is that on 07.08.2022 at 17.00 hrs, the petitioners trespassed into the residence of the 4th respondent, engaged in a verbal and physical altercation and thereafter, the 1st accused drew a gun out, thereby causing a terror situation. Annexure A1 is the FIR, and this Crl.M.C is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1. 3. Heard Sri. Manu Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Sreeja V, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri. Ansu Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 6.

4. The prayer sought by the petitioners is to quash the proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1 based on settlement arrived between the petitioners and the respondents 3 to 6, who are the victims of the crime.

5. To substantiate the aforesaid settlement, Annexures A2 to A5 affidavits sworn by respondents 3 to 6 respectively are produced. Based on said documents, it is contended that no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution, as the matter is settled between the parties.

6. I have gone through the records and heard the contentions raised from either side.

7. It is true that, the matter is settled. The veracity of the settlement, as revealed through the affidavits filed by the respondents 3 to 6, was verified by the Station House Officer concerned and found to be genuine. The learned Counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 6 has also confirmed the same and reiterated that they do not have any subsisting grievances against the petitioners and have no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners. There is no dispute that the offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code alleged against the petitioner can be quashed on the basis of settlement, being not very serious offences. However, the question arises is with regard to the offences under the provisions of the Arms Act .

8. The petitioner produced Annexure A6, the license issued to him in respect of the said gun and according to him, he had the authorization to use the said gun at the relevant time. Therefore, it is pointed out that no offence under the provisions of the Arms Act would be attracted.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the offences alleged against him, namely, Section 20 and 27(1) of the Arms Act are not attracted from the materials placed on record. According to him, the contents of Annexure A1 FIR and the FIS would not make out the offences punishable under or Section 27 of the .

10. I have carefully examined the facts of this case, materials placed in support of the allegations and relevant statutory provisions applicable. As far as the offence under Section 27 is concerned, the same would be attracted only when the person concerned uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of Section 5 or under Section 7. Section 5 deals with the use, manufacture, sale, transfer, convert, repair, test etc., of any firearm, without obtaining a license issued as per the provisions of the Act. Annexure A6 license issued to the petitioner shows that he was duly licensed to hold the gun at the relevant time and therefore the act alleged against the petitioner would not make out a case for the contravention of section 5 of the Act.

11. The Section 7 deals with the acquisition, possession or manufacture or sale of prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition. There is no allegation that the firearm, the petitioner was possessing, is something which comes under the definition of 'prohibited Arms or prohibited ammunition. Therefore it cannot be concluded that while the petitioner was carrying the gun and taking out the gun, he violated Section 7 of the A