* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 16. + CRL.M.C. 3151/2008 R.N.SHARMA ..... Petitioner versus STATE CORAM: Through: Mr. Anil K. Gujral, Advocate. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pawan Bahl, APP. HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR ORDER 26.05.2009 CRL.M.C. 3151/2008 & CRL.M.A. 11612/2008 (stay) 1. This is a petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 566 of 1998 under Sections 420/468/471 and Section 25/30 Arms Act registered at Police Station Hauz Khas in so far as the Petitioner is concerned. The challenge is also to an order dated 14th August 2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM') taking cognizance against S.K. Sharma owner of 'Sharma Gun House' whose name is in column 2 of the charge sheet. 2. A charge sheet filed initially showing Devender Panwar as the main CRL.M.C. No. 3151/2008 page 1 of4 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified accused. It disclosed that during the course of investigation of FIR No.l81 of 1998 registered under Sections 25/54/59 .Anns Act and Sections 420/468/471 IPC registered at PS R.K. Puram, one Vijay Yadav son of late Shri Sat Parkash resident of Gurgaon, Haryana was arrested. He stated that many persons in Delhi had obtained arms licences from Jammu by unfair means. On this disclosure the records of Delhi arms dealers were checked and a list of the persons who had purchased weapons and ammunition were obtained. It was found that the licence of Devender Panwar son of Mange Ram which was supposed to have been issued from Jammu was forged and the extension of its validity was also found to be forged. The house of Devender Panwar was searched and documents found therein were taken possession of. During investigation it was revealed that the anns license in possession of Devender Panwar was forged. SI Gaurav Aggarwal interrogated accused Devender Panwar as well as R.N. Sharma proprietor of Shanna Gun House, resident of Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and O.P.Kapoor proprietor of Kapoor Gtm House. Devender Panwar stated that he got his arm license through O.P.Kapoor by paying him Rs.l8,000. Thereafter he purchased a .315bore rifle from R.N.Sharma of Sharma Gun House, F aridabad, Haryana. CRL.M.C. No. 3151/2008 page 2of4 3. A supplementary charge sheet was filed on 20th February 2005. Therein it was stated that according to the investigating agency there were no grounds for arresting O.P.Kapoor, R.N.Sharma and Viney Verma. The disclosure statement of Devender Panwar was only to the effect that he got his arms licence from 0 .P. Kapoor and that he had purchased arms from R.N.Sharma after getting that licence. R.N. Sharma had also admitted that a rifle and cartridges were sold to Devender Panwar and that he was not aware at that time that the arms licence was forged. Importantly, the supplementary charge sheet notes that R.N.Sharma had already been cited as prosecution witness against Devender Panwar in the main challan. 4. After the supplementary charge sheet was filed, the learned MJ\.1 by the impugned order dated 14th August 2006 took cognizance of the offence against "S.K.Sharma owner of Sharma Gun House". 5. Even if the reference to S .K. Sharma is to be read as a reference to R.N.Sharma, it is plain that cognizance could not have been taken as far as he is concerned. The supplementary challan clearly states that he has already been cited as a witness in the main challan filed against Devender CRL.M.C. No. 3151/2008 page 3of4 . ) 1 Panwar. Learned APP too was unable to justify the taking of cognizance against the Petitioner who has been cited as witness in the case as per the main challan which has already been filed. 6. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 14th August 2006 passed by ihe learned 11M to the extent that cognizance has been taken against the Petitioner, the owner of Sharma Gun House, is hereby set aside. The Petitioner will be summoned, if at all, only as a prosecution witness. It is made clear that the case will proceed against the other accused to whom process has been issued . 7. The is accordingly allowed. The· application is disposed of. 8. The trial court record be sent back immediately. 9. Order dasti to the parties. MAY 26,2009 dn CRL.M.C. No. 3151/2008 S.MURALIDHAR, J page 4 of4