Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:640 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8133 of 2024 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rupendra Kumar Singh,Raj Kumar Singh,Vijay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. A N D Case :- WRIT - C No. - 756 of 2024 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Singh,Maharaj Baksh Singh,Rupendra Kumar Singh,Vijay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. In both the writ petitions, the orders impugned are of cancellation of the arms license granted to the petitioner and rejection of the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 3. In both the cases, the sole ground for cancellation of arms license is pendency of a criminal case being FIR No.150/2021 in which the petitioner is an accused. The said offence was lodged under Section 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC read with Section 3/25 of Arms Act. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the allegations levelled through the FIR, it was alleged that a person was apprehended alongwith forged license who made a statement that it was the petitioner who had helped the said person in preparation of the forged license. It is further argued by counsel for the petitioner that no specific allegation was levelled against the petitioner in the said FIR except for abetting in preparation of the forged license. He places reliance on the judgments in the case of Chhanga Prasad Sahu v. State of U.P. and Ors.; 1984 SCC OnLine All 61, Kamaluddin vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ Petition No.2290 (MS) of 2014) decided on 23.02.2017, Muslim vs. State of U.P. & Ors.; Neutral Citation No.-2022:AHC-LKO:41290 and Radhey Shyam Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors.; Neutral Citation No.- 2019 AHC-LKO:28024, to argue that merely the pendency of a case or filing of an FIR is not enough to cancel the license. 5. It is further argued that there are no allegations that the petitioner is misusing the weapon granted to the petitioner in terms of the two licenses; in the absence thereof, invoking of power under Section 17(3) & 17(5) of Arms Act is unjustified. 6. Learned Standing Counsel opposes the writ petition by arguing that not only the license was found to be forged on the said basis of the said forged license, he had purchased certain weapons also, thus, the allegations levelled against the petitioner is grave and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 7. Considering the submissions made at the Bar and on perusal of the impugned orders passed against the petitioner cancelling his two arms license, the sole foundation is that an FIR was registered against the petitioner in which he was named as an accused. The said reasoning is clearly contrary to the law as explained in the case of Chhanga Prasad Sahu (Supra), thus, on the said sole ground and finding that there are no allegation against the petitioner of misusing any weapon, the impugned orders in both the cases deserve to be quashed. 8. Orders dated 28.08.2024 & 06.04.2023 impugned in Writ - C No. - 8133 of 2024 and orders dated 30.10.2023 & 06.04.2023 impugned in Writ - C No.756 of 2024 are quashed. 9. Licenses of the petitioner shall stand restored. 10. Present petitions are allowed in above terms. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench