Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 755 (JHR)

Manish Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2022-06-29

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard, Mr. Ramawatar Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of First Information Report including order taking cognizance dated 22.03.2021 in connection with Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No. 11 of 2021, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra. 3. F.I.R. has been lodged alleging therein that on 19.01.2021 at about 8.05 P.M. the informant Prakash Seth, the Police Sub Inspector, Sadar, Chatra alongwith 8 police personnel went near the house of petitioner then the petitioner began to flee away but he was apprehended and 3 cartridges were recovered from his pocket. It is further alleged that the petitioner confessed that 3 cartridges and one pistol was given to him by Sudhanshu Pandey and the pistol is kept in the house. It is further alleged that the police party went to the house of the petitioner but the entire family members of the petitioner behaved rudely and the police returned back without recovering the pistol. 4. Mr. Ramawatar Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence under the Arms Act is made out against the petitioner. He further submits that only 3 cartridges have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and in view of section 2 and 45 (d) of the Arms Act, the learned court below has erred in taking cognizance under section 25(1-B)A, 26, 35 of the Arms Act. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment in the case of “Chan Hong Saik Thr. Spa. Arvinder Singh Vs. State and Another” reported in 2012 (130) DRJ 504 and the judgment in the case of “Rajesh Singh Vs. State and Another” (CRL.M.C. 509/2020). By way of relying on these judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court quashed the F.I.R. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned counsel for the State submits that there are allegation against the petitioner and 3 cartridges have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. 6. The Court has gone through the F.I.R. and finds that petitioner started fleeing when the police stopped him. Three cartridges of 7.65 MM have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. 6. The Court has gone through the F.I.R. and finds that petitioner started fleeing when the police stopped him. Three cartridges of 7.65 MM have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has also disclosed before the police that he has kept pistol in his house that can be recovered from his house. When the police reached at the house of this petitioner, family members of this petitioner misbehaved with the police and they did not allow the police to enter into the house that is why pistol cannot be recovered. 7. Section 45 of the Arms Act sets out certain type of cases to which the provisions of the Arms Act are not made applicable. These cases are specified in clause (a) to Clause (d) of Section 45. In other words, if the case of the accused falls in any of the clauses of Section 45 and if he is able to satisfy the requirement of such clause then such accused cannot be prosecuted for commission of any offence punishable under the Arms Act. Section 45(d) of the Arms Act provides that the acquisition, possession or carrying by a person of minor parts of arms or ammunition which are not intended to be used alongwith complementary parts acquired or possessed by that or any other person. 8. Whether the petitioner has intention of threat or willing to commit any crime that is subject matter of trial. Question remains that intention was clear that the petitioner started fleeing after seeing the police force. 9. In the case of Rajesh Singh(supra) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner it has been disclosed that larger Bench vide judgment dated 06.01.2016 in case of Dharmendra Vs. State in CRL.M.C. 4493/2015 opined that single cartridge is ammunition and comes under the Arms Act, 1959. In the case of Rajesh Singh(supra) four cartridges have been recovered from the Airport and in that situation the Court came to the conclusion that threat was not there. In the case of Chan Hong Saik (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, three cartridges have been recovered and in that view of the matter the Court quashed the F.I.R., wherein in the case in hand the facts are different. 10. In the case in hand the petitioner was apprehended by the police. In the case of Chan Hong Saik (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, three cartridges have been recovered and in that view of the matter the Court quashed the F.I.R., wherein in the case in hand the facts are different. 10. In the case in hand the petitioner was apprehended by the police. Three cartridges of 7.65 MM has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. There is allegation of fleeing away after seeing the police force and police was not allowed to discharge their official duty. Moreover, in the case of Sanjay Dutt V. State in SLP (Crl. 1834-35 of 1994) Constitution Bench has observed that the meaning of first ingredient of “possession” of any arms etc is not disputed. Even though the word possession is not preceded by any objective like knowingly, yet it is common ground that in the context the word possession must mean possession with the requisite mental element that is conscious possession and not mere custody without the awareness of the Nature of such possession. 11. In view of aforesaid facts, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.