# Satyaveer v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 792
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-03
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 23088 of 2018
- **Bench:** Vikram D. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satyaveer-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53237
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 & 171C -
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 -
Section 7 - Petitioner was granted firearm
licence with respect to .32 Bore Revolver,
cancelled by D.M. on account of pendency
of criminal case - Held, no material has
been relied to demonstrate as to how
petitioner was a threat to public peace
and
tranquility
-
Mere
pendency
of
criminal case cannot ipso facto amount to
cancellation of arms licence - Only report
of SSP has been relied upon, which
contains
details
of
criminal
case
-
Prosecution failed to demonstrate that
petitioner has in any manner misuse his
firearm and there was no conviction
against petitioner - Thus, impugned order
quashed and authorities are directed to
restore firearm licence. (Para 8, 9, 12)

Writ petition allowed. (E-13)

## Text

792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was no waiver of the right by the
respondent no.4 for being appointed as
Manager as respondent no.4 claimed his
right
to
be
appointed
as
Manager
immediately
after
the
death
of
Harishchandra Singh.

37. Thus, for the reasons given
above, the writ petition lacks merit and is
dismissed without any order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 792
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Writ C No. 23088 of 2018

Satyaveer ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Bharat Singh, Sri Bheshaj Puri, Ms. Priti
Chaudhary

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 & 171C -
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 -
Section 7 - Petitioner was granted firearm
licence with respect to .32 Bore Revolver,
cancelled by D.M. on account of pendency
of criminal case - Held, no material has
been relied to demonstrate as to how
petitioner was a threat to public peace
and
tranquility
-
Mere
pendency
of
criminal case cannot ipso facto amount to
cancellation of arms licence - Only report
of SSP has been relied upon, which
contains
details
of
criminal
case
-
Prosecution failed to demonstrate that
petitioner has in any manner misuse his
firearm and there was no conviction
against petitioner - Thus, impugned order
quashed and authorities are directed to
restore firearm licence. (Para 8, 9, 12)

Writ petition allowed. (E-13)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Priti Chaudhary,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Bheshaj Puri,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State-respondents.

2. It is submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the initially
the petitioner was granted two firearm
licence. One being .32 Bore Revolver and
the other being 12 Bore Rifle. The present
matter is in respect of the cancellation of
arms licence pertaining to .32 Bore
Revolver. By means of the impugned order
dated 7.12.2012 the firearm licence of the
petitioner has been cancelled on the ground
of pendency of a criminal case being Case
Crime No.1056 of 2010, under Sections
147, 323, 504, 506, 171C I.P.C. and Section
7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. The
licence of other 12 Bore Rifle has already
been restored on the similar facts by this
Court by order dated 23.7.2013, which has
been
accepted
by
the
respondents.
Thereafter, the licence in respect of the .12
Bore Rifle has been restored. The order
dated
23.7.2013 passed
in Writ
CNo.32621 of 2012 is extracted hereunder:-

"An arms license of the
petitioner has been cancelled on
the ground of pendency of a
criminal case, quite apart from the
fact that the case, which has been
registered relates to a minor
dispute and in any case, the
weapon of the petitioner was not
misused.
3 All. Satyaveer Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
793
In the light of the aforesaid,
the impugned orders cannot be
sustained and are quashed.
The
writ
petition
is
allowed."

3. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the firearm licence
of
the
petitioner
was
already
been
deposited with the police station concerned
on account of ensuing elections taking
place and the first information report
pertains to the physical assault and there is
no allegation against the petitioner that the
firearm in question has been used by the
petitioner in the alleged occurrence.

4. Learned counsel for the
petitioner fairly submits that the criminal
trial in the present case is pending
consideration. However, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that solely on the
strength of the criminal prosecution of the
petitioner where the petitioner is not
alleged to have used the firearm in the
occurrence cannot be a ground for
cancellation of the firearm licence. More
particularly, when there are no material
circumstances to demonstrate that the
petitioner is a threat to public peace and
tranquility. The impugned order was
subject matter of challenge before the
Appellate Authority. The petitioner had
filed a review application before the
District Magistrate concerned, which was
rejected by order dated 30.8.2013 against
which an appeal was preferred, which was
rejected by order dated 7.9.2017.

5. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that thereafter,
the appeal was filed against the original
order dated 7.12.2012, which has been
rejected by order dated 12.4.2018 being
barred by limitation.
6. Learned Standing Counsel
submits that the petitioner was involved in
Case Crime No.1056 of 2010, under
Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 171C I.P.C.
and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment
Act and on the aforesaid basis, the licence
of the petitioner has been cancelled by the
impugned
order
dated
7.12.2012.
Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred a
review application, which was rejected by
order dated 30.8.2013. Against the order
passed on the review application, an appeal
was preferred, which stands rejected by
order dated 7.9.2017. Thereafter, against
the original order dated 7.12.2012, the
appeal was preferred, which has been
rejected by order dated 12.4.2018 being
barred by limitation.

7. Learned Standing Counsel
however, could not dispute the fact that in
the similar circumstances in respect of
another firearm licence of the petitioner,
this Court on 23.7.2013 has restored the
licence of the petitioner and the same was
not challenged before any higher Court.

8. In the present case, it is to be
seen that the petitioner was granted firearm
licence with respect to .32 Bore Revolver,
which stood cancelled by impugned order
dated 7.12.2012 on account of pendency of
a criminal case being Case Crime No.1056
of 2010, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506,
171C I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law
Amendment Act. It is not the case of the
State that the petitioner has used the
firearm in respect of which the licence
was granted. The District Magistrate
concerned in the impugned order dated
7.12.2012 has recorded a finding that the
petitioner is having criminal antecedent
and the continuation of the arms licence
would disturb the public peace and
tranquility.
794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
9. A perusal of the order dated
7.12.2012 would demonstrate that no
material has been relied in the impugned
order to demonstrate as to how the
petitioner is a threat to public peace and
tranquility. It is a settled law that mere
pendency of a criminal case cannot ipso
facto amount to cancellation of the arms
licence. It is also settled law that unless the
individual is convicted, he is deemed to be
innocent. Therefore, it is imperative on the
part of the District Magistrate to record a
specific finding. No material has been
relied upon by the District Magistrate. Only
the report of the SSP dated 29.11.2010 has
been relied upon, which contains the details
of criminal case. Neither it has been
demonstrated before this Court that the
petitioner has in any manner misuse his
firearm and till date there is no conviction
against the petitioner.

10. It is to be noted that in the
similar circumstances the another arms
licence of the petitioner has already been
restored by order dated 23.7.2013 in Writ
C-No.32621 of 2012, which has not been
challenged.

11. Since the circumstances in the
present case and the aforesaid writ petition
were similar and the learned Standing
Counsel could not show any material
before this Court to demonstrate that the
petitioner is a threat to public peace and
tranquility. Mere pendency of a criminal
case in which there is no allegation that the
petitioner has misused the firearm, it cannot
be said that the petitioner is a threat to
public peace and tranquility.

12. Accordingly, the impugned
order dated 12.4.2018 passed by respondent
no.2, order dated 7.9.2027 passed by
respondent no.2 and orders dated 7.12.2012
and 30.8.2013 are hereby quashed. The writ
petition is allowed. The District Magistrate
concerned is hereby directed to restore the
firearm licence of the petitioner within a
period of 30 days from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order.
While restoring the firearm licence of the
petitioner, the District Magistrate would be
at liberty at the time of renewal of arms
licence to decide whether the renewal can
be granted on account of events after
passing of the order dated 7.12.2012.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 794
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ C No. 31219 of 2024

Kalyan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dilip Kumar Goswami, Himanshu Pandey, Sunil
Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226 - Refund of registration money
- YEIDA advertised scheme for allotment
of
residential
plots
-
Scheme
contemplated reservation of 17.5% of
total
plots
for
persons
whose
land
acquired/purchased
for
planned
development - Earlier, land of father of
petitioner acquired but he died before
launch of scheme, petitioner applied
under 'farmers category' - Submitted
online application alongwith registration
money, accepted, included in draw of lots
- Held, petitioner was interested in