1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 9 of 2025 Reserved on : 20.6.2025 Decided on: 24.6.2025 Pawan Kumar Chauhan & anr. … Petitioners Versus State of H.P. …Respondent _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioners : Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. Varun Chandel and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Addl. A.Gs., with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Dy. A.G., assisted by HC Vinod Kumar, New Shimla, District Shimla. Virender Singh, Judge Applicants have preferred the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS Act’), against the order dated 7.11.2024, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 3, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Cr.M.A. No. 4162 of 2024, titled as, ‘Pawan Kumar Chauhan & anr. Vs. State of H.P.’. 2. By way of order dated 7.11.2024, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application, moved by the 2 applicants, seeking permission of the learned trial Court, to sell weapons, i.e. a) pistol NPB 380 Bore No. Y010871X make Beretta, b) one pistol NPB 380 Bore No. YO10843X make Beretta. 3. As per the factual position, as involved in the present case, on the statement of one Sunil Chauhan, the Police registered a case under Sections 429 and 201 of IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 11 of Cruelty towards Animals Act with P.S. New Shimla. The said case has been registered on the complaint of aforesaid Sunil Chauhan, who has telephonically informed the Police that someone had fired at a dog. 4. When, the Police reached at the spot, the complainant made a statement, under Section 154 Cr. P.C., disclosing therein that on 27.3.2024, he alongwith his friend, was on his way to Forest Colony Chamber, on foot. At about 3:40 p.m., when they reached near Forest Colony, then they heard the noise of gun fire shot. On turning back, they noticed that in the rivulet, a dog was killed by Pawan Chauhan, who was having gun in his hand. 5. Upon the statement of the complainant, the police registered the FIR No. 4 of 2024, dated 27.3.2024. After registration of the FIR, the Police machinery swung into 3 motion. Accused/petitioner Pawan Kumar Chauhan was summoned to Police Station. On inquiry, accused/petitioner disclosed that his son Arsh Chauhan is having following weapons: i) .22 Bore Rifle No. 3199482; ii) Gun/Rifle No. 12 Bore Rifle No. ST17741R DBBL Make Beretta and; iii) one pistol .380 Bore make Beretta No. Y010843X. 6. The license No. of the aforesaid weapons is stated to be LN14267A7A4E520, issued by the District Magistrate, Hamirpur, H.P., which is stated to be valid up to 26.8.2026, and issued in the name of Arsh Chauhan. 7. In addition to this, one pistol LP STEYR SPORTS NO. CAL 4.5/177.755200, which was without license, was taken into possession. On 5.4.2024, a correspondence was made to the District Magistrate, Hamirpur, through e-mail, to obtain information with regard to said weapons. It was found that accused/petitioner Pawan Kumar Chauhan has deposited his weapons on 9.4.2024. As per his information, he has deposited six weapons, particulars of which, are as under: i) Rifle No. 076103708; ii) Rifle No. CH17084; iii) Rifle No. DBBL 170808 12 Bore; 4 iv) Rifle No. 3006W/O Bolt with Magzine LCO 19525 v) Pistol .32 Bore KDA 0305 and; vi) Pistol YO10871X .380. 8. As per the record, these weapons were purchased on the license No. 14267A7A3FF18. As per the report of the SFSL, Junga, recent fire is stated to have been made with Rifle No. 07613708 which is registered in the name of accused/petitioner Pawan Chauhan. 9. Since accused/petitioner was having valid license for the aforesaid weapon, which was used to kill the dog, Section 25 of the Arms Act was deleted and the provisions of Section 27 of the Arms Act were added, in this case. 10. After registration of the case, charge sheet was filed in the Court of learned JMFC, Court No. 3 and the case is now stated to be listed on 17.9.2025, for prosecution evidence. 11. During pendency of the case before the learned trial Court, an application under Section 451 Cr. P.C. was moved by applicant Arsh Chauhan to release the weapons, on the ground that the FIR was registered against his father, in which, the following weapons were taken into possession and the same were sent to SFSL, Junga: i) DBBL .12 Bore Make Beretta bearing No. ST 17741 R; ii) Rifle .22 LR bearing Number 3199482 and ; 5 iii) Pistol .380 Make Beretta bearing No. Y010843 X; iv) Air Pistol make Steyr .177. 12. The said application was allowed and five weapons were ordered to be released, in favour of the applicant, particulars of which are as under: i) Rifle mm bearing No. 17084 with .22 LR spare Barrel No. 3165805; ii) Rifle Mausar 30-06 bearing No. LC 019525; iii) Pistol make Walther .32 WC bearing No. KDA0305 with .22 LR spare Barrel No. KDA0199; iv) Pistol .380 Beretta bearing No. Y010871X v) DBBL .12 Bore Make Laurona 170808. 13. Similarly, on the application of accused/petitioner Pawan Kumar Chauhan, the following weapons were ordered to be released in his favour: i) DBBL .12 Bore Make Beretta bearing No. ST 17741 R; ii) Rifle .22 LR bearing number 3199482; iii) Pistol .380 Beretta bearing No. Y010843X; iv) Air Pistol make Steyr. 177. 14. Thereafter, by moving an application, a permission has been sought to sell the following weapons: i) One pistol NPB .380 Bore No. Y010871X make Beretta; ii) One pistol NPB .380 Bore No. Y010843X make Beretta. 15. It has specifically been asserted in the application that the aforesaid weapons were released in favour of the applicants/petitioners, vide order dated 7.6.2024, by the 6 learned trial Court, subject to the condition that the applicant(s) shall not dispose off the weapon, without the prior permission of the Court, till conclusion of the trial. 16. It is the specific case of the Police that two weapons, for which, permission has been sought, are not involved in the offence in question. As such, a prayer has been made to allow the applicant to sell the same. The said application has been contested mainly on the ground that release of the weapon, in favour of the applicants was conditional and weapons are stated to be material for adjudication of the case. 17. Although, the application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court, but, in para-8 of the same, it has been held that as per the report of the FSL, Rifle No. 76103708 is stated to be used recently, whereas, in the application, the no permission has been sought to sell the same. 18. When, the weapons, for which, the permission to sell has been sought, are not the case property and the same have already been released on Spurdari to the applicants, in such situation, compelling the applicants to retain the same is violative of their right to sell the same. 19. Considering the fact that as per report of the FSL, Rifle No. 76103708 was used, the learned trial Court has 7 fallen into error by declining the permission to sell the two weapons, mentioned in the application. 20. Consequently, the present petition is allowed by quashing the order dated 7.11.2024 and requisite permission to sell the aforesaid two weapons, is granted to the petitioners, subject to following condition: i)The petitioners shall produce the weapons, before the I.O., who shall click the photograph of the same and place the same on record of the learned trial Court; ii) The applicants shall not raise the question of identification of these weapons, during the trial. 21. With these observations, the present petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Virender Singh) Judge 24.6.2025 Kalpana