Cr.W.J.C. No.74 OF 1998 *** In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. *** Sudha Singh, wife of late Braj Kishore Narayan Singh, resident of village Dewapur, P.S. Barauli, district Gopalganj………………………………………………..……Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, New Secretariat, Baili Road, Patna 2. The Collector-cum-District Arms Magistrate, Gopalganj 3. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gopalganj 4. The Officer-Incharge, Barauli Police Station, Gopalganj……………………………………………………………………Respondents *** For the Petitioner: Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kuamr No.1, G.P.No.8 *** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH *** Jayanandan Singh, J. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner, who is wife of deceased Braj Kishore Narayan Singh, resident of Village Dewapur, P.S. Barauli, District Gopalganj, has filed this writ application for quashing of the first information report pertaining to Barauli P.S. Case No.102/91 dated 16.05.1991 registered under Sections 25(IB) (b) and 25 (4) of the Arms Act. - 2 - 3. In sum and substance, the allegation in the first information report is that in the wake of the Parliamentary Election, all the arms licences of the District were suspended by the Collector for the period 06.05.1991 to 30.05.1991 and all the arms were directed to be deposited in the local police station by 10.05.1991. Petitioner and many others did not deposit the arms by that date and, therefore, F.I.R. was registered against them under the aforesaid sections of the Arms Act. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that there was some delay in deposit of the arms by the petitioner as they had to be brought from Patna, and under special permission of the District Arms Magistrate of Gopalganj, vide Annexure-2, she deposited the arms in the shop of a licensed dealer in Gopalganj on 19.05.1991. Therefore, he submits that no offence was committed by the petitioner. He has also referred to certificate issued by the dealer, vide Annexure-3, from which it appears that all the three arms were deposited in the shop on 19.5.1991 and were returned back to the petitioner on 31.05.1991. 5. From these two documents, it - 3 - appears that although there was some delay in deposit of the arms by the petitioner but there was no deliberate delay in disobeying the order of the authority. Near about 20 years have elapsed since institution of the first information report. By order dated 19.02.1998, operation of the direction of the Supervisory Officer to take steps for arrest of the petitioner was stayed by this Court. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by allowing the respondents to continue with the prosecution of the petitioner specially in the wake of the fact that she is a lady. 7. In the circumstances, this application is allowed. The said first information report vide Barauli P.S. Case No.102/91 and further proceedings in the case, so far it relates to the petitioner, are quashed. (Jayanandan Singh, J.) Patna High Court, Patna The 30th April, 2010 N.A.F.R. (B.T.)