CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 33219 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 03, 2011 Mrs. Kavita Chaudhary and another .....Petitioners VERSUS Distt. Magistrate, Panchkula and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Through this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seem to be making somewhat extra ordinary prayer, for which apparently there is a lack of locus on their part. The petitioners pray for issuing directions to respondent No.1 not to renew the arms licence of respondent No.4, Harpreet Singh, and further direction to cancel the above-mentioned arms licence of respondent No.4. CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 33219 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 2 }: At the outset, the counsel for the petitioners was asked to show the locus of the petitioners to file and maintain such a petition. The counsel, however, could not justify that such an approach can be made by them. The petitioners have no concern with the issuance of arms licence, its suspension or renewal, issued to a third person. It is a matter between the official respondents and the person concerned. It is for the official respondents to consider the request, if made, for renewal of arms licence and to do so strictly in accordance with law. I am, thus, of the view that the petitioners have no locus to file this petition and to make the prayer for restraining respondent No.1 either from renewing the arms licence of respondent No.4 or to cancel the same. It is for respondent No.1 to see whether the case for renewing the arms licence is made out or not and not for the petitioners to make any grievance in this regard, whatever may be the reason. Having observed that I have noticed the facts in this case and these can not be ignored only on the ground of lack of locus on the part of the petitioners. A perusal of the averments made in the petition would show that respondent No.4 has allegedly used his weapon in commission of an offence against the petitioner for which a case has been registered against him. It is alleged that respondent No.4 and his wife CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 33219 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 3 }: alongwith some anti-social elements had tress-passed into the house, which is of the petitioner or is in possession of the petitioners for which the petitioners have filed a civil suit before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shimla, where an order restraining respondent Nos.4 and 5 from interfering into the peaceful possession of the petitioners over suit property is already passed. Still, respondent No.4 had tress-passed into the house by breaking open the doors, two months of the passing of the restrained order. An FIR was lodged against respondent No.4 under various provisions of the IPC. Petitioner No.1 had thereafter moved a complaint before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Himachal High Court, who took suo-motu notice and directed District Judge, Shimla, to take necessary action in accordance with law. The police had then taken into possession a rifle bearing No.NPB 7984 (256 bore with five live cartridges), which is of respondent No.4. It is averred that respondent No.4 was found having no valid licence for this rifle as the licence of this weapon had already expired on 23.9.2007. Still, respondent No.4 had carried and used this weapon. A complaint was accordingly made to D.G.P., Himachal Pradesh, when another FIR No.47 was registered against respondent No.4 under Section 25 of the Arms Act. A notice of the complaint filed in this regard is also statedly issued to respondent No.4 and others. It is averred that to CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 33219 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 4 }: avoid criminal liability, respondent No.4 has approached respondent No.1 for renewal of arms licence and has filed an application supported by an affidavit deposing that no case is pending against him. The petitioners, on the other hand, has disclosed the pending cases against respondent No.4 to urge that he has filed a false affidavit that no case is pending against him. The petitioners have accordingly approached respondent No.1 to not to renew the licence and rather to cancel the same. It is further noticed that the issue of renewal of arms licence matter was referred to the Superintendent of Police for report, who conducted an enquiry/investigation and reported that three different FIRs were registered against respondent No.4. Superintendent of Police, Panchkula, accordingly recommended that the arms licence of respondent No.4 be not renewed. Despite that the arms licence has been renewed by S.D.M., Panchkula, on 27.9.2011 after suo-motu condoning the delay of four years in seeking renewal of the licence. Obvious inference from all this is that respondent No.4 appears to be an influential person as alleged and has managed the renewal of licence whereas in fact a clear case for suspension of his arms licence is made out. The petitioners may not have locus to file this petition or even to file this application before respondent-Deputy Commissioner CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 33219 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 5 }: not to renew the licence of respondent No.4 but once this matter had been brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner whereupon Superintendent of Police has given his report, the Deputy Commissioner and the S.D.M., have not acted wisely in renewing the arms licence. It appears that Deputy Commissioner as well as S.D.M have lost sight and have ignored the provisions of the Arms Act. In such like circumstances, when a case is registered for use of fire arm, licence for which has expired, no case for renewal was made out and rather, if the licence had been validly in existence, even then case for cancellation may be made out. The submission made in the petition that respondent No.4 has exerted some extraneous influence over respondent No.1 can not be easily glossed over or brushed-aside. A case for taking serious view is made out. It would need a notice that even suo-motu action initiated by Chief Justice of High Court indicating seriousness of the issue have had no effect on respondent No.1 or the S.D.M. while acting to renew this arms licence of respondent No.4, which apparently is in violation of law. The matter needs to be brought to the notice of Home Secretary and the Chief Secretary to look into the same to see if respondent No.1 or S.D.M. had been bonafide in exercise of their power or had exceeded jurisdiction and has acted in an illegal manner. If it is an attempt to screen the offender by renewing the CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 33219 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 6 }: licence, then the same needs to be set-right. It may be that one has to have a valid arms licence to get out of the offences under Arms Act and subsequent renewal may not save respondent No.4 of the offences alleged under the Arms Act but renewal of the licence appears illegal and unjustified. Respondent No.1 and S.D.M., Panchkula, may have to be made to answer for this conduct on their parts, which is serious enough as was so viewed by an authority as high as Chief Justice of the High Court. This could have been ignored by anyone at his peril. A copy of this order be sent to the Home Secretary, Haryana, as well as the Chief Secretary, Haryana, for taking immediate and appropriate action to take corrective measures. The petition is accordingly disposed of. November 03, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE