1 cr-wp-696-698-699-11 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 696 OF 2011 Bharat Brahmadutt Singh Thakur ] Adult, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai, ] residing at 202, Madhav Ashram, ] Rajawadi, Vidyavihar (East), ] Mumbai-400 077 ]..Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Maharashtra ] Through the Home Ministry, ] Government of Maharashtra ] ] 2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police, ] Mumbai HQ-1, Crawford Market, ] Mumbai-400 001 ]..Respondents WITH CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 698 OF 2011 Jitendra Brahmadutt Singh Thakur, ] Age : 63 Years, Adult, Indian Inhabitant ] of Mumbai, residing at 202, Madhav ] Ashram, Rajawadi, Vidyavihar (East), ] Mumbai - 400 077. ].. Petitioner Vs 1. State of Maharashtra ] Through the Home Ministry, ] Government of Maharashtra. ] 2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police, ] Mumbai, HQ-1, Crawford Market, ] Mumbai - 400 001. ].. Respondents 2 cr-wp-696-698-699-11 WITH CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 699 OF 2011 Dinesh Jitendra Singh Thakur, ] Age : 35 Years, Adult, Indian Inhabitant ] of Mumbai, residing at 202, Madhav ] Ashram, Rajawadi, Vidyavihar (East), ] Mumbai - 400 077. ].. Petitioner Vs 1. State of Maharashtra ] Through the Home Ministry, ] Government of Maharashtra. ] 2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police, ] Mumbai, HQ-1, Crawford Market, ] Mumbai - 400 001. ].. Respondents .... Mr. R.D.Soni Advocate i/b Mr. Bipin Joshi Advocate for Petitioners Mr. A.S.Gadkari Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents in W.P.No. 696 of 2011 Mr. Y.S.Shinde Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents in Cri. W.P.No. 698 of 2011 Mr. K.V.Saste Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents in Cri. W.P.No. 699 of 2011. .... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND M.N.GILANI, JJ. DATED : MARCH 24, 2011 ORAL JUDGEMENT [PER P.V.HARDAS, J.] : 1 Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 3 cr-wp-696-698-699-11 2 With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, these petitions which raise similar challenge and the facts being similar, are being decided by this common judgment. 3 These petitions impugn the orders of the authorities canceling the arms licence of the respective petitioners as well as the order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeals filed by the petitioners. Since the facts in all the three cases are similar, we propose to advert to the facts in Writ Petition No. 696 of 2011. The petitioner claims that the arms licence came to granted to him for keeping and possessing revolver and a rifle/12 bore DBDL-Gun. The aforesaid licence came to be granted to the petitioner about 15 years back. It appears that there was some dispute between the petitioner and his brother Dilip Singh on account of which, Dilip Singh lodged a complaint and on the basis of which an offence vide Crime No. 253 of 2009 under Sections 452, 506-II, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be granted against the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 696 of 2011 and the petitioners in other companion petitions. It may incidentally be stated that all the petitioners are brothers inter se. 4 On the basis of the registration of the offence, a show cause 4 cr-wp-696-698-699-11 notice came to be issued to the petitioner, dated 22.6.2010 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Brihanmumbai, calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why his arms licence should not be canceled. Similarly show cause notices came to be issued to the other two petitioners in respective petitions. The principal ground which was stated in the show cause notice for cancellation of the arms licence was the registration of the offence punishable under Sections 452, 506-II, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered against the respective petitioners vide Crime No. 253 of 2009 on the basis of the complaint of one Shri. Dilip Singh Thakur. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 31.5.2010 pointing out that on account of a family dispute a false report came to be lodged against him and that the petitioner was innocent. It appears that by order dated 31.12.2010 the authority suspended the licence pending the decision of the aforesaid criminal case. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra challenging the order of suspension of licence. The appeal came to be dismissed which was communicated to the petitioner by order dated 7.3.2011. The appellate authority also relied upon the registration of the offence adverted to above. Meanwhile during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners filed Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 419 of 2011, 416 of 2011 and 417 of 2011 in this Court. All the three petitions came to be decided by the common 5 cr-wp-696-698-699-11 order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 21.2.2011. The Division Bench directed the petitioners to appear before the Home Minister, State of Maharashtra on 22.2.2011 at 12.30 noon on which date, the appellate authority was directed to proceed with the hearing of the appeals. It appears that pursuant thereto the appeals were heard and ultimately the appeals came to be dismissed. 5 Learned Counsel for the petitioners at the outset has stated before us that the police had submitted `B' Summary in respect of the offence registered vide Crime No. 253 of 2009. The learned Magistrate had issued notice to the complainant Dilip Singh Thakur who also submitted his reply to the notice of the learned Magistrate and admitted that the dispute between the parties had been amicably settled and therefore, requested the Court to accept `B' Summary. The learned Magistrate therefore, passed an order on 17.3.2011 which is reproduced below: “ Today complainant has appeared along with his learned advocate Mrs. Walawalkar. He has given no objection for granting `B' Summary. Hence, `B' Summary is granted. 17.3.11” 6 cr-wp-696-698-699-11 6 Learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged before us that in the light of the acceptance of `B' Summary, the sole ground on the basis of which the licence of the petitioners has been suspended no longer survives and consequently the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. The petitioners have produced before us certified copies of the orders of the learned Magistrate as well as the certified copy of the reply filed by Dilip Singh Thakur. In the light of the acceptance of `B' Summary by the learned Magistrate and the statement of the complainant in Crime No. 253 of 2009 requesting the learned Magistrate to accept `B' Summary, according to us, the very foundation on the basis of which the impugned orders came to be passed, no longer survives. 7 Resultantly these petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs. [ M.N.GILANI, J. ] [ P.V.HARDAS, J. ]