Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38726 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16951 of 2018 Petitioner :- Keshari Narayan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Garg,Dinesh Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State-respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 20.09.2012 passed by respondent no.3 in Case No. 33/2012, under section 17 Arms Act (State Vs. Keshari Narayan) and order dated 10.06.2016 passed by respondent no. 2 in Appeal No. 08/2012 Under Section 18 Arms Act (Keshari Narayan Vs. State) by which arms license of the petitioner has been cancelled. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only ground for cancellation of Arms Licence is that only one criminal case i.e. Crime Case No. 336/2011 under section 323, 504, 506, 147, 148, 149, 308 IPC and Section 3(1)X, P.S. Karchhana, District Allahabad is pending against the petitioner. He further submits that nothing has been stated in both the orders that the fire arm licence granted to the petitioner has been misused or there is any danger to public safety except the allegation that only one criminal case is pending against him. He further submits that fire arms licence can be cancelled only for the reason assigned to Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959. In support of his submission he has relied upon judgments of this Court in Writ C No. 3439 of 2011 (Jay Bhagwan Kanodia vs. The Commissioner and another) decided on 26.7.2012 and Writ C No. 30389 of 2008 (Ram Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 28.3.2019. He also relied upon recent judgement passed by this Court in Writ C No.13715 of 2021 (Arun Kumar Singh vs.State of U.P. and others) and submits that this Court should come for rescue and reprieve the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned standing counsel submits that since the petitioner is having one criminal case registered against him public peace and safety are in danger, therefore the order has rightly been passed cancelling the fire arms licence of the petitioner. 5. The Court has perused the record. 6. The provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Arms Act provides various conditions for variation/cancellation or suspension of the arms licence, which is reproduced as under:- "17.Variation, suspension and revocation of licences- 3.The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence- (a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act ; or (b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or (c)if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it;or (d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or (e)if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence." 7. From the perusal of the aforesaid section it clearly provides that under which circumstances the fire arms license can be cancelled. In the case in hand reference has been made for cancellation of the fire arms license that since only one criminal case is registered against the petitioner, public peace and safety are in danger, but no material has been brought on record to show as to how public safety was in danger. The fire arm license cannot be cancelled merely because FIR has been lodged against the licensee. 8. This Court in Jay Bhagwan Kanodia (supra) and Ram Singh (supra) has held that fire arms licence can only be cancelled if it falls within sub Section (3) of Section 17 of the Act. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and view taken by this Court in Jay Bhagwan Kanodia (supra) and Ram Singh (supra) the Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 20.09.2012 passed by respondent no.3 in Case No. 33/2012, under section 17 Arms Act (State Vs. Keshari Narayan) and order dated 10.06.2016 passed by respondent no. 2 in Appeal No. 08/2012 Under Section 18 Arms Act (Keshari Narayan Vs. State) cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. 10. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order Date :- 18.3.2025/Arti Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad