202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8698-2019 Date of decision: 22.09.2025 DILJIT SINGH ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Mr. Amaninder Singh Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 13.09.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Faridkot, vide which the arms licence of the petitioner was suspended and order dated 30.06.2014 (Annexure P-2), vide which the review application of the petitioner was dismissed and also order dated 03.08.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, vide which the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Arms Act was dismissed, with a further prayer to direct the respondents not to cancel the arms licence of the petitioner and renew the same.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case where an order dated 13.09.2013 (Annexure P-1) was passed by the District Magistrate, Faridkot, whereby it was directed that the licence of the petitioner cannot be renewed due to pendency of FIR No.177 dated 13.09.2008, registered against him under Sections 341, 323, 34 and 379 of the IPC at Police Station Sadar Kotkapura and it was further directed that after the decision of the aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner can give an application for adjudication of his weapon in the office of District Magistrate, Faridkot. He further submitted that thereafter, the aforesaid criminal case was decided in appeal on the basis of compromise between the parties culminating in a judgment dated 25.04.2014 (Annexure P-4), whereby the petitioner was released on probation for good conduct upon furnishing probation bonds. He further submitted that by way of the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, it is clear that the petitioner had not used the firearm in the aforesaid offence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner moved an application before the District Magistrate, Faridkot and vide order dated 30.06.2014 (Annexure P-2), it was ordered that the petitioner was not acquitted but was only released on probation for good conduct and since he has been convicted and released on probation for good conduct upon furnishing probation bonds, he is not entitled for renewal of his arms licence. He further submitted that thereafter, the petitioner assailed the aforesaid order (Annexure P-2) by filing an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act and vide order dated 03.08.2016 (Annexure P-3), the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, dismissed the appeal, which has also been challenged in the present petition. He further submitted that a perusal of the aforesaid appellate order (Annexure P-3) would show that on the face of it, the same was totally a non-speaking and cryptic order merely affirming the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Faridkot vide Annexure P-2, whereas it is a settled law that mere pendency of an FIR does not constitute a ground for non-renewal of licence and even otherwise also, once the aforesaid criminal case has already been decided, wherein it was established that the petitioner never used the firearm regarding which he is seeking renewal and he was released on probation for good conduct pursuant to the aforesaid judgment passed in the year 2014, then there was no occasion for the Additional District Magistrate, Faridkot or the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot to refuse renewal of the arms licence of the petitioner. He further submitted that there is no such provision under which renewal of arms licence can be denied only on such a ground unl