UMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition that has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dtd. 8/1/2020 (Annexure P-3), passed by Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak and order dtd. 15/7/2020 (Annexure P-5), passed by Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, rejecting the application of the petitioner for issuance of new arms licence.

(2.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner herein would contend that petitioner is a Law graduate and a law abiding citizen and had applied for new arms licence for his security and safety as well as that of his family members. It is submitted that an application dtd. 28/8/2018, was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, being a competent authority, who then sent the application to the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, for verification of the antecedents of the petitioner. The police verified his antecedents and got the comments of two of his neighbours namely Rattan Singh S/o Banwari Lal and Rakesh S/o Om Parkash, who stated that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents and they would have no objection in case the new arms licence is issued in the name of the petitioner. However, Assistant SubInspector while submitting his report came to a erroneous conclusion that wife of the petitioner namely Ritu Raj had registered a case bearing FIR No.0325 dtd. 4/6/2018, under Ss. 354-B, 506, 341 and 34 of the IPC, at Police Station City, Rohtak, against the petitioner and others and since the FIR was pending against him, the issuance of arms licence could not be recommended. While sending the report, it was also noted that another FIR No.0141 dtd. 17/9/2017, under Ss. 341, 354 and 506 of the IPC, was registered at Police Station Women Police Station, Rohtak, against the petitioner, which is pending before the Court.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner herein would contend that the authorities below have not applied their mind to the criminal case stated to have been filed by Ritu Raj, wife of the petitioner. In fact the said FIR has been registered with an allegation that she had been threatened by two unknown persons, while she was going to deliver dinner to her brother-in-law. On account of a threat having been issued by the said unknown persons to her, her children and her husband, the instant FIR had been registered. It is further contended that the FIR does not pertain to any allegation against the petitioner herein. It is submitted that FIR No.141 dtd. 17/9/2017, pertains to a family dispute, which is pending between the two brothers and in which, there are no such allegation of misuse of any arms. It is submitted that Sec. 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, lays down conditions under which the licensing authority can refuse to grant a licence and none of the conditions specified thereunder is satisfied in the instant case. It is submitted that there is total non-application of mind while rejecting the application of the petitioner for issuance of a new arms licence.