2025:UHC:8137 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 553 of 2025 12 September, 2025 Usman Ali --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Divyaman S. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Devendra Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.10.2020 passed by learned District Magistrate, Nainital in Case No.51/13/2017-18 State Vs. Usman Ali, whereby, the arms license of the petitioner was cancelled as well as the order dated 05.06.2024 passed by learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital in Appeal No.3/2/2020-21 Usman Ali Vs. State, whereby, the said appeal was dismissed affirming the impugned order dated 08.10.2020. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered dealer in gold jewellery for more than twenty years within the State of Uttarakhand and also is an arms license holder of two licensed weapons i.e. one license No.2691/G2/Haldwani 2 Bore Cartridge weapon No.27430 I.D. No.0470046132015 and one license No.3665/G2/Haldwani/2011 Revolver No.3969 dated 06.01.2012 I.D. No.0470029472016. A show cause notice dated 28.08.2018 under Section 17 of the Arms Act in Case No.51/13/2018 was sent to the petitioner by 1 2025:UHC:8137 the learned District Magistrate, Nainital stating report given by the SHO Banhanpura dated 31.07.2018 that the petitioner, who is an arms license holder of above mentioned two licensed weapons, is having dispute with his wife and both the sons regarding partition of property, alienation of property and possession of revolver and other family disputes, due to these instances there is a possible misuse of using the licensed weapons, which may be used to commit a cognizable offence. Petitioner was summoned on 11.10.2018 to give a reason as to why his arms license should not be revoked/cancelled. Petitioner filed his reply and further clarified that he has been a license holder since 2011 and 2012 and never misused the license nor threatened any member of his family with the licensed weapon and there is no pending case against him. The matrimonial discord between the petitioner and his wife have been resolved due to involvement of some well wishers and they have signed mutual agreement dated 26.10.2018 and settled their differences. Further a mutual settlement agreement has been signed between the petitioner and his two sons namely Zeeshan and Imran on 16.12.2019. Learned District Magistrate, Nainital was not satisfied with the reply given by the petitioner and cancelled the arms license of the petitioner on 08.10.2020. Thereafter, petitioner filed an appeal No.3/2/2020-21, which was dismissed and the order dated 08.10.2020 was affirmed. Thus, the petitioner is before this Court by challenging both the impugned orders. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except the complaint of petitioner’s wife regarding her matrimonial dispute, there is nothing on record to 2 2025:UHC:8137 show that the license of arms granted to petitioner has ever been misused. Therefore, revoking the license of petitioner on ground of presumption that the petitioner is having matrimonial dispute with his wife and there is chance of misuse of arms cannot be made out a ground for revoking the license of the petitioner. He further submits that the daughter of petitioner was abducted in the year 2013 and there is possibility of future threats that loom over the petitioner, his family members and his business, therefore, it is necessity of the petitioner to have arms in order to protect his family and business for any imminent threat. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned District Magistrate and the learned Commissioner, Kumaoun Division ignored the fact that the matrimonial discord between the petitioner and his wife and two sons have been settled by a mutual agreement as stated above and presently they all are living together. The mutual settlement agreement itself shows that there are no difference of opinion between the petitioner and his family members. He further submits that the State has failed to show sufficient facts that justify the conclusion that the petitioner would misuse the licensed weapons in his possession. 5. Learned State Counsel has filed counter affidavit along with delay condonation application. Delay in filing the counter affidavit is condoned. Counter affidavit is taken on record. Delay condonation application (IA/1/2025) made therefor, is allowed. 6. Learned State Counsel on its counter affidavit stated that it was found that although there was a settlement between the two parties in the case, but there was a quarrel between the two parties regarding the 3 2025:UHC:8137 property and possession of the weapon. However, learned State Counsel has also admitted this fact that the matrimonial discord between the petitioner and his wife and two sons have been settled by a mutual agreement and they are living together. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record as well as the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below. Since, the sole dispute has already been compounded between the petitioner and his family members by a settlement agreement and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.1382 of 2023 State Vs. Usman Ali, was quashed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.09.2023 in C482 No.1829 of 2023 after allowing the compounding application filed by the parties, therefore, it would not be appropriate to cancel the arms license of the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 08.10.2020 passed by learned District Magistrate, Nainital in Case No.51/13/2017-18 State Vs. Usman Ali, as well as the order dated 05.06.2024 passed by learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital in Appeal No.3/2/2020-21 Usman Ali Vs. State, stand quashed. The respondent-District Magistrate, Nainital is further directed to release the license and the seized weapons to the petitioner forthwith in accordance with law. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 12.09.2025 PN 4