Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1003 (PNJ)

Head Constable Nasir Ahmad v. State Of Haryana

2002-09-27

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. Head Constable Nasir Ahmad, petitioner-accused seeks quashing of FIR No. 245 dated 24.4.2000 registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) with Police Station, Central Faridabad. 2. Present case came to be registered on the statement of Head Constable Jalalu Din, who was at the relevant period posted as driver in Police Post, Sector 16, Faridabad. According to his version in the month of December 1999 an alteration had taken place between Constable Balwan Singh and Head Constable Nasir Ahmad over a petty matter. Consequently, Head Constable Nasir Ahmad opened the box lying in the Police Post and started loading the pistol. Seeing this Jalalu Din and Constable Ashok Kumar snatched the pistol from him otherwise he would have fired at Balwan Singh as at that time he was under the influence of liquor. The pistol contained one cartridge and the pistol and cartridge were handed over to Moharrir Constable Madan Gopal. Thereafter Head Constable Nasir Ahmad sought the return of pistol and cartridge from Madan Gopal but he did not pay any heed to his request. On 24.4.2000, Madan Gopal produced the pistol and cartridge before S.I. Dharam Pal who got the case registered against the petitioner-accused as he could not account for the unauthorised country made pistol and cartridge in his possession. Hence, the present petition. I heard counsel for the parties at length. 3. Quashing of the petition had been sought by the petitioner on the ground that Moharrir Constable Madan Gopal is alleged to have received the pistol in December, 1999 and the case was registered vide Daily Diary No. 20 on 23.4.2000 and no explanation had come on record for the delay in registration of the case. It was also stated on behalf of the petitioner that S.I. Dharam Pal was inimically disposed against him and in fact no such incident had taken place and for that reason Constable Balwan Singh, Moharrir Constable Madan Gopal and Constable Jalalu Din had, in their affidavits, disowned the version recorded in the report lodged. 4. In pursuance to the notice given to the respondents reply had been filed by Badan Singh, Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station Central, Faridabad on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 4. In pursuance to the notice given to the respondents reply had been filed by Badan Singh, Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station Central, Faridabad on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. While controverting the stand taken on behalf of the petitioner, it had been maintained that the petitioner had unlawfully possessed the pistol and for that reason the present case had rightly been registered against him under Section 25 of the Act. The allegation of ill- will made against S.I. Dharam Pal had been denied. 5. The facts stated in the report lodged clearly spell out that the petitioner was found in possession of unlicensed pistol and cartridge as had been stated by Jalalu Din, Constable and the same was recovered from his possession and thereafter handed over to Moharrir Constable Madan Gopal. It cannot be said that from the facts stated in the report lodged no case falling within the ambit of Section 25 of the Act is made out against the petitioner accused. 6. Merely delay in lodging the report against the petitioner-accused and subsequently sworn in affidavits of Constable Jalalu Din, Constable Balwan Singh and Moharrir Constable Madan Gopal denying the version made in the report lodged, are no grounds to quash the FIR in question as the case had been registered after investigation by Sub Inspector Dharam Pal. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the petition and the same is consequently dismissed.Petition dismissed.