1 2025:CGHC:48207 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 4984 of 2025 Jonty Adwin Anand S/o Shri Ajeet Kumar Anand Aged About 30 Years R/o L I G- B/575, Yamuna Vihar, NTPC Township, Jamnipali, District- Korba C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, 492002. 2 - Collector, Korba District- Korba C.G. 3 - Superintendent Of Police, Korba District- Korba C.G. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Soumya Rai, Advocate For State-respondent : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 19/09/2025 1. By way of this petition, petitioner sought following relief(s) : 2 “1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of call for the entire record of the aforesaid examination. 2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ giving directions to the Respondent to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 24.06.2024 and to restore the Gun License in favour of the petitioner. 3. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ giving directions to the Respondent to further renew the Gun License in favour of the petitioner. 4. That, this Court may issue any other order that his Hon’ble court deems fit in the interest of justice be awarded to the applicant.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a registered Member of the National Rifle Association of India. Petitioner being a Member of the said association, he has participated in many National levels competitions conducted by the Government of India across the nation. The petitioner is also a registered member of the Chhattisgarh Pradesh Rifle Association. The petitioner being the member of Chhattisgarh Pradesh Rifle Association has participated in many State level competitions conducted by the State Of Chhattisgarh across the State and further the petitioner have participated in the competition which is conducted by the Chhattisgarh Pradesh Rifle Association. The 3 alleged victim who is also the neighbour resident of the petitioner along with her cousin namely Ashish Roy came into contact with the petitioner in the year 2019 for the first time. Thereafter she along with her brother repeatedly contacting the petitioner through various mode thought Facebook and WhatsApp and started showing her interest in shooting. It is pertinent to mention here that she never disclosed the fact that she is married or single. The victim gained the trust of petitioner and started building friendship with the petitioner through shooting and became close friends with the petitioner. As the friendship between the petitioner and the Jenifer grew further with time. Soon after the petitioner came to know about the fact that she is already married, the petitioner confronted the her and started going distant with the her, as the fact that she started to ask the money for the petitioner on various grounds of her health and in the name of her parents. As she had no answer to the questions of the petitioner with regard to revealing the fact of its earlier marriage and petitioner going distant, thereafter she started demanding huge sums of money from the petitioner and also threatened the petitioner to lodge false complaint against the petitioner. On 21/04/2024, she messaged the petitioner that, the petitioner should pay the personal loan of her, thereafter she promised to the petitioner that she will not come in way of the petitioner's life and she will not bother the petitioner further. As the 4 petitioner failed to fulfill the demand of the her of paying the huge amount of Rs.25-30 lacks, thereafter in order to harass the petitioner, on 01/05/2024, she lodged a written complaint against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner on pretext of marriage has committed forcibly sexual intercourse with her. On the basis of written complaint, police registered the FIR bearing Crime No.267/2024 against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. When the petitioner came to know about the registration of FIR, petitioner was left with no other option to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction and to file the application for grant of anticipatory bail and thereafter, on 23/05/2024, the learned Additional Session Judge, FTSC (POCSO) Korba, enlarged the petitioner on anticipatory bail in connection in the Crime No.267/2024. 3. In the meantime, when the petitioner was fighting for the anticipatory bail, she wrote a complain to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kotwali regarding the suspension of petitioner's Gun Licence. She stated in her complaint dated 20/05/2024 that as the petitioner is a gun holder, the petitioner can put her life in danger and further the petitioner is a shot tampered person and loses control easily, therefore, his gun licence may be suspended and withdrawn. 5 4. On receiving such complaint, the Station house Officer, Kotwali, Korba without informing to the petitioner has sent the report to the Superintendent of Police Officer, Korba, which has never been given to the petitioner upon which the SP Officer Korba, has sent a report to the Collector Office, Korba with regard to the suspension of Gun Licence of the petitioner. 5. The Collector, Korba vide its order dated 24/06/2024 has passed the impugned order without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner nor without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner, the respondent has suspended the Gun Licence of the petitioner bearing License No.K-544/2016 vide its impugned order dated 24/06/2024 (Annexure P-1). Hence, this petition. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. Section 17(3)(b) of the Act of 1959 states as under- "17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences,- (1) XXX XXX XXX (2) XXX XXX XXX 6 (3) The Licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit-or revoke a licence- (a) XXX XXX XXX (b) If the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for pubile safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or" A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show if the licensing authority thinks it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety he can suspend or revoke the licence. The order must Indicate clearly that continuance of licence would be against public peace, safety and security. 9. The question for consideration would be whether the licensing authority is vested with the power under Section 17(3)(b) of the Act of 1959 to revoke/cancel the license of a public person merely on involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case. 10. To answer the aforesaid question, it would be apt to refer relevant paragraphs of Rakesh Kumar Vs. District Magistrate, Raebareli, 2013 (83) Allahabad Criminal Cases 225 (HC), wherein it has been held by the High Court of Allahabad that merely becasuse of pendency of a criminal case, the arms-licenses of the holder cannot be cancelled. Relevant paras 12, 13, 14 and 15 read as under : "12. Further, this Court in the case of Sahab Singh Vs. Commissioner Agra Region, Agra in 2006 (55) Allahabad Criminal Cases 225 (HC), in paragraph No. 3 held as under:- 7 “The submission of the petitioner is that merely because of pendency of a criminal case, the arms licence of the petitioner cannot be cancelled. In support of the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two decisions of this Court in the case of Hausla Prasad Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Ishwar @ Bhuri v. State of U.P. It has further been submitted that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the cases of Balaram Singh v. State of U.P., Kailash Nath v. State of UP, AIR 1985 All 291 as well as the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sadri Ram v. District Magistrate, Azamgarh, the arms licence of the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension pending enquiry." 13. In the case of Mulayam Singh v. State of U.P. in 2013 (80) Allahabad Criminal Cases 786, In patagraph Nos. 11 and 12 held as under:- "Para No. 11 The question as to whether mere Involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of licence under the Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court reported in Sheo Prasad Mishra vs. District Magistrate). The Division Bench relied upon the earller decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Masi Uddin vs. Commissioner, Allahabad, AIR 1972 All 510, wherein it has been held:- 8 "A licente may be cancelled, inter-alia, on the ground that it is "necessary for the security of public peace, or for public safety, to do so. The District Magistrate has not recorded a finding that it was necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to revoke the licence. The mere existence of enmity between a licencee and another person would not establish the "necessary" connection with security of the public peace or public safety. In the case before us also the District Magistrate has not recorded any finding that it was necessary to cancel the licence for the security of public peace or for public safety. All that he has done is to have referred to some applications and reports lodged against the petitioner. The mere fact that some reports had been lodged against the petitioner could not form basis for cancelling the licence. The order passed by the District Magistrate and that passed by the Commissioner cannot, therefore, be upheld on the basis of anything contained in Section 17(3) (b) of the Act." Para No. 12-Similar view has been taken by this Court in various decisions relying upon the Division Bench Judgment passed in Sheo Prasad Mishra (supra). There is no doubt that the District Magistrate and the Commlesloner l.e. administrative authoritles are bound to taka appropriate action in the matter of grant of licence and also its cancellation for the purpose of maintaining peace and harmony in the society. The 9 assessment of administrative authorities with regard to grant or cancellation of licence should not be interfered In usual course by the Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction unless there is illegality or arbitrariness." 14. In the case of Raj Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P., 2013 (80) Allahabad Criminal Cases 231, this Court in paragraph No. 3 held as under:- "The ground for Issue of show-cause notice, suspension and ultimately cancellation of the licence Is that one and precisely one criminal case was registered against the petitioner. The District Magistrate has also held that the petitioner has been enlarged on bail. He has gone further to observe that if the licence remained intact, the petitioner, may disturb public peace and tranquility. The same findings have been given by the Commissioner, Unmindful of the fact that this Court is repeating the land, but the deaf ears of the involvement in a criminal case without any finding that involvement In such criminal case shall be riment Licence. In Ram Suchi vs. Commissioner, Devipatan Division, 2004 (22) LCD 1643, it was held that this law was relied upon in Balram Singh vs. State of UP., 2006 (24) LCD 1359, Mere apprehension without substance is simply an opinion which has no legs to stand. Personal whims are not allowed to be reflected while actirig as a public servant. 10 15. Further, in the case of C.P. Sahu v. State, 1954 Allahabad Weekly Cases 145, this Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Act held as under:- "The object of the enquiry that a licensing authority may, while proceeding to consider the question as to whether or not an arms licence should be revoked or suspended, like to make, clearly is to enable the licensing authority to come to a conclusion as to whether or not the facts stated in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 17(3) exist and as already explained, it is riot obliged to before considering that a case for revocation/suspension of license has been made out, associate the licensee In such enquiry, in this view of the matter it can safely be taken that where a licensing authority embarks upon such an enquiry it is, till then not convinced about existence of the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 17(3), of the Act. So long as it is not so convinced no case to make an order either revoking or suspending an arms licence as contemplated by the section will be made out." 11. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by the Allahabad High Court in Hridaya Narain Tiwari v. State of U.P., [2014 (4) ADJ 744 (LB)], Rama Kushwaha vs. State of UP., 2011 (29) LCD 1045, Hiramani Singh vs. State of U.P., 2011 (29) LCD 829, and Rajendra Singh v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow 11 in 2011 (29) LCD 1041, wherein it has been propounded that involvement in criminal case or pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation/revocation of firearm license. 12. In case of Jageshwar Vs. State of U.P. , [2009 (67) ACC 157], It has been held by the High Court of Allahabad that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public Security or public interest. 13. In Thakur Prasad Vs. State of U.P., [2013 (31) LCD 1460]", the High Court of Allahabad propounded that "Public Peace" or "Public Safety" do not mean ordinary disturbance of law and order, but the public safety means safety of the public at large and not safety of few persons only. Relevant paras 9, 10 and 11 of the sald case read as under: "9. Further, while passing the Impugned order also the licensing authority has not given any adequate finding that if petitioner holds the arms license then the same shall be against the public peace or public safety. "10. Public peace" or "public safety" do not mean ordinary disturbance of law and order public safety means safety of the public at large and not safety of few persons only and before passing of the order of cancellation of arm license as per Section 17(3) of the Act the Licensing Authority is under an obligation to 12 apply his mind to the question as to whether there was eminent danger to public peace and safety involved in the case of Ram Muril Madhukar Vs. District Magistrate, Sitapuci 1998(16) LCD 905], wherein it has been held that license can not be suspended or revoked on the ground of public interest (Jan-hit) merely on the registration of an FIR and pending a criminal case. 11. Further, this Court in the case of Habib Vs. State of U.P., 2002 ACC 783", held as under:- The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of the licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. District Magistrate, Basti and Ors.1, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the eariler decision In Masi Uddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad,, found that mere Involvement in criminal case cannot, in any way, affect the public security or public interest and the order cancelling or revoking the licence of fire arm has been set aside. The present Impugned orders also suffer from the same infirmity as was pointed out by the Division Bench in the above-mentioned cases. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench that these orders cannot be 13 sustained and deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed." 14. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of principle of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments (supra), it is quite vivid that the petitioner's license has been revoked/cancelled by the licensing authority simply recording a finding that the petitioner has committed incest and physical exploitation with the victim, by deceiving her with the promise of marriage since the year 2020. On the report of the applicant, Crime No. 267/2024 under section 376 of IPC has been registered and taken into investigation. The accused is absconding since the date of incident and is threatening the applicant/victim. 15. Considering the ground for suspension of gun’s license of the petitioner and further considering the fact that the petitioner has already been acquitted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Korba, District Korba (C.G.) vide judgment dated 26.10.2024 (Annexure P-11) from the charge levelled against him and also considering that vide letter dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P- 13), the Superintendent of Police, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) has made a letter to the Collector & District Magistrate, Korba stating therein that on the basis of the report submitted by the SHO, Kotwali Darri and the CSP, Korba, there is no objection in revoking the suspension of the gun license bearing No.K-544/2016 of the 14 petitioner. It is also important fact that the involvement in a criminal case or pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground under Section 17(3)(b) of the Act of 1959 to cancel/suspend the license. 16. In view of above, the impugned order dated 24.06.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 - Collector, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) is hereby quashed and the petitioner's gun license is hereby restored subject to renewal, if license period has already been expired. 17. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant