Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Kamlesh Shukla, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner applied for a grant of a fire arm's licence. It transpires that the Officer-in-charge of Kotwali, Farrukhabad submitted a report recommending a grant of a fire arm's licence in favour of the petitioner. THE Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh also gave a favourable report. THE A.D.M., Farrukhabad in its report also recommended a grant of licence. Subsequently, the Officer-in-charge Kotwali, Farrukhabad submitted a fresh report alleging that the petitioner was involved in two criminal cases, namely, one under Section 498-A IPC, and the other one under Section 304-B IPC, and therefore, recommended that no licence should be granted. Based on this fresh report, the Prescribed Authority refused to grant a licence in favour of the petitioner on the ground that since two criminal cases were pending, it would not be in public interest to grant a licence. THE petitioner preferred an appeal which was also rejected by the appellate authority. THE petitioner has now filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. Section 14 of the Arms Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 13, the Licensing Authority shall refuse to grant a licence on such grounds as mentioned in Section 14 of the Arms Act. Sub clause (3) of Section 14 provides that the licensing authority can refuse to grant a licence to any person if he is of the opinion that the grant of licence would not be in public interest, and while refusing to grant a licence, the licensing authority is required to record his reasons for such refusal. A Supplementary Affidavit has been filed by the petitioner indicating that the two criminal cases filed by the petitioner's wife are under Section 498-A IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which proceedings have been stayed by the High Court, and that, no case under Section 304-B IPC has been registered against the petitioner nor can it be registered since his wife is still alive. This specific averment has not been controverted by the respondents in the supplementary counter affidavit.
(3.) REGISTRATION of a criminal case under Section 304-B IPC could be a ground to reject an application for grant of a licence by the Licensing Authority in public interest, but registration of a case on a complaint of the wife of the petitioner is personal dispute inter se between the two parties, in which public interest is not involved. Consequently, the ground for rejection of the petitioner's application for grant of an arm's licence on the ground that it was not in public interest to grant such a licence, in my opinion, is patently erroneous and cannot be sustained. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The Licensing Authority is required to consider the matter afresh and pass a fresh order within three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order, after seeking a fresh report.;