Rukamkesh vs State of U.P. and Others

Amar Saran and B.N. Shukla, JJ.—We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned A.G.A.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. lodged against the Petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. in Case Crime No. 193 of 2008, P. S. Patiyali, District Kanshiram Nagar.

The allegations in the F.I.R. were that the Petitioner had illegally obtained a fire-arm by concealing his criminal history and forging the official notings of certain police personnel, who were supposed to deal with the application for the licence.

It was argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the firearm licence had been issued to him after due verification of the licensing authority in the month of February, 2008, after obtaining reports and recommendations of the concerned police station, hence the Petitioner could not be faulted if there were any irregularities in the reports. Moreover, the Arms Act provides a complete code and u/s 17(3) thereof, the licensing authority is authorised to suspend/revoke the licence if the same was obtained by suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it. No F.I.R. ought to have been filed under the aforesaid sections when the remedy under the Arms Act was available.

In our opinion, as the allegations in the F.I.R. were that after a preliminary enquiry by the A.S.P., Kasganj, at the instance of S.S.P., Etah, it was found that the concerned Police Inspector and other constables who were said to have dealt with the application for the licence have consistently stated that they had not made any such recommendation nor did the recommendations bear their signatures. These are very serious allegations regarding forging police papers for the purpose of fraudulently obtaining the arm licence and the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. are prima facie disclosed on these allegations and it is of no consequence that the licence could also have been cancelled for giving wrong information or suppressing the material facts u/s 17 of the Arms Act. There is no bar on action being taken against the Petitioner both for revocation of the licence and also his criminal prosecution in the matter.

It was then argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that it is unbelievable that the police personnel would not have appended their signatures and made notings on the licence papers. In our view, in case the accused decides to forge their signatures and writings of concerned police officials, the concerned police personnel would be unaware of the entries made, hence the issuance of the licence on the basis of the forged recommendation would not help the Petitioner in any manner. In case the police personnel are falsely denying having made the entries and affixing their signatures on the recommendatory documents, they can subsequently be prosecuted u/s 182, Cr. P.C. or other appropriate provisions of law.

The F.I.R. also shows the pendency of over 20 cases against the Petitioner and others, which fact, if it was known, would have disentitled him from obtaining the licence. He is also said to have concealed his real address and shown a wrong address and thereby the Petitioner and the co-accused have managed several firearm licences on the basis of the allegedly forged documents.

For the aforesaid reasons, it cannot be said that the F.I.R. does not prima facie disclose the alleged offences against the Petitioner. Hence no ground exists either for quashing the F.I.R. or staying the Petitioner''s arrest in the case.

The petition has, therefore, no force and is dismissed.