Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9630 of 2021 Applicant :- Prakash Chandra Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State.
2. Sri Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that controversy in narrow compass is that, whether applicant-Prakash Chandra Mishra was justified in obtaining an arms license from District-Bhadohi showing himself to be resident of village-Kaulapur, Police Station-Gopiganj, District- Bhadohi, when he had submitted an Application for grant of Arms License, which was recommended on 09.12.2005 whereas in fact Applicant is a permanent resident of Village- Khaptiha, Police Station-Handia, District-Allahabad.
3. Allegation on the applicant is that, though, he is a bona fide resident of Village-Khaptiha, Police Station-Handia, District- Allahabad, but suppressing this fact, he has wrongly shown his address of that of Village-Kaulapur, P.S.-Gopiganj so to obtain an Arm License from District-Bhadohi.
4. Sri Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that his client is a 'Ghar Jamai' in Village-Kaulapur since 1986, thus he was not required to submit details of his permanent residence.
5. However, Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State submits that applicant had not furnished his permanent address of Village-Khaptiha, Police Station-Handia, District-Allahabad, and if that address would have been furnished, then earlier criminal antecedents of the applicant would have been known to the licensing authorities and that would have had impact on the decision of granting or refusing the license.
6. Learned AGA further submits that allegation on the applicant is of suppression of his permanent address for obtaining an Arm License.
7. Sri Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that without instructions proceedings may not be advanced and instructions be sought, inasmuch as, applicant is seeking not only cancellation of N.B.W. issued against the applicant, but also quashing of complete proceedings initiated in pursuance of the criminal complaint.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that Case No.2114 of 2011 (State Vs. Prakash Chandra Mishra) originating from Case Crime No.50 of 2011 has been initiated under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC, Police Station-Gopiganj, District-Bhadohi pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi.
9. Allegation on the applicant is in regard to suppression of his permanent address. There is no denial on part of Sri Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant that Applicant has his permanent address at Village-Khaptiha, Police Station-Handia, District-Allahabad in the Application Form. However, his contention is that, he is residing under Gopiganj Police Station since his marriage and possess Voter I.D. Card etc. from Gopiganj, District-Bhadohi only.
10. However, two things are required to be seen in the present case, one whether it was mandatory for the applicant to have given his permanent address because with marriage, his permanent address will not change. Secondly, whether the court below was justified in issuing N.B.W. against the applicant.
11. Typed copy of the order-sheets reveal that on 03.03.2020, accused was absent, therefore, orders were passed for issuance of N.B.W. seeking his presence on 11.05.2020. On 11.05.2020, due to Covid-19, next date was given as 28.09.2020. On 28.09.2020, P.O. was busy in Inspection and, therefore, next date was fixed as 07.12.2020. Due to Covid-19, on 07.12.2020, case was adjourned to 15.02.2021. On 15.02.2021 also accused was not present and, therefore, it was directed to issue process in terms of the earlier order vide which, N.B.W. was directed to be issued against the applicant.
12. Thus, as far as issuance of N.B.W. is concerned, continuous absence of the applicant from the court as is evident from the orders dated 30.01.2018, 25.04.2018, 01.06.2018, 15.10.2018, 19.12.2018, 06.03.2019, 15.05.2019, 04.07.2019, 21.09.2019, 05.12.2019 reveals that applicant has been continuously abstaining from the court even the order-sheets of the prior dates from the year 2015 reveals that accused has been abstaining from the court proceedings. N.B.W. was directed to be issued on 01.12.2017. It is settled law that once, N.B.W. is issued, then it remains in vogue till it is actually executed. Therefore, prima facie there is no illegality in the order directing issuance of N.B.W.
13. However, as far as issue of mentioning of permanent address in the Application Form seeking grant of Arm License is concerned, Form III-A under the Arms Rules, 1962, ment for "licence for possession" and carrying by a retainer of arms or ammunition for the purpose of sport/protection/display is required to show name and residence of the father of licencee, under coloumn-4. Thus, under the Rules of 1962 also, which were applicable at the time of grant of licence to the applicant, there is a column for showing name and residence of father of licencee and this being a requirement which is akin to permanent address, it cannot be said that there is no suppression of information as alleged against the applicant. Therefore, registration of case against him cannot be interfered with specially when even after becoming a 'Gharjamai', his liability did not seize to disclose the name and residence of his father i.e. his permanent address of Village-Khapitha, Police Station Handia, District Allahabad.
14. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order calling for interference.
15. Application fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 Ashutosh Digitally signed by Justice Vivek Agarwal Date: 2021.08.10 18:32:16 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad