IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:11.11.2025 Nacchattar Singh Giri ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Ms. Anjali Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

Mr. G.S. Dhillon, Advocate for respondent No.8.

*****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the impugned orders dated 09.12.2021 (Annexure P-7) passed by the respondent No.2-Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar and order dated 09.03.2021 (Annexure P-3) passed by the respondent No.3-learned District Magistrate, Jind.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in the present case respondents No.4 and 9 have already died and considering the nature of the subject matter of the present case, all the private respondents may be deleted from the array of the parties, as the relief has been claimed only against the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Licensing Authority/District Magistrate, Jind, vide Annexure P-3 whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit his licensed weapon and his arms licence was cancelled, as well as by the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority vide Annexure P-7, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. She further submitted that the petitioner, being the complainant, had lodged a complaint against certain private respondents and consequently, an FIR was registered against some of the private respondents, including private respondent No.4, who has since died. During the trial, the proceedings against respondent No.4 were abated on 15.2.2022, and the remaining accused respondents have since been acquitted. She submitted that the reason for the cancellation of the petitioner’s arms licence was that a land dispute existed between the parties and now the main accused who is the Hardayal @ Giani- respondent No.4 who has since been deleted from the array of parties has died and there is no reason for any conflict between the parties. She submitted that even otherwise also, it is a settled law that mere pendency of an FIR itself cannot become a ground for non-renewal of arms licence or its cancellation. She further submitted that a perusal of the order passed by learned District Magistrate, Jind (Annexure P-3), would show that a report was called for from the concerned Deputy Inspector General of Police and Superintendent of Police, Jind, on the basis of which learned District Magistrate, Jind, passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit his weapon and cancelling his arms licence, on the ground that there existed a land dispute and there was a likelihood of breach of peace. She also submitted that, in fact, the petitioner was in possession of a licensed weapon, namely a 12-bore gun, which was meant for the purpose of self-defence of the petitioner and mere existence of any land dispute between the parties should not have become a ground for cancellation of the licence. Therefore, on the aforesaid ground, the licence could not have been cancelled. She further submitted that, in any case, the dispute itself no longer exists, as respondent No. 4, Hardayal @ Giani, has already died, and the remaining accused have been acquitted.

4. She also contended that, on appeal being filed, the learned Appellate Authority has merely reiterated the reasoning given by the District Magistrate, Jind and no separate reasons have been mentioned in its order.

5. She further asserted that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that licensed weapon of the petitioner was for self-defence and unless any of the parameters of Section 17 of the Arms Act, are satisfied, the licence cannot be cancelled