Mere pendency of a criminal case cannot justify arms-licence suspension without specific public-safety findings.

The petitioner held firearm licence No. 638/2021. Following registration of a criminal case against him, the Collector/District Magistrate, Gwalior, by order dated 16 December 2025, suspended the licence until the decision of the criminal case.

The petitioner challenged the order under Article 226, contending that it was based merely on the registration of the FIR and that the licensing authority had not recorded any finding that continuation of the licence threatened public peace or public safety under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959.

The State defended the suspension on the ground that registration of the criminal case justified the Collector’s action.

The alleged criminal dispute arose out of business transactions, and there was no allegation or finding that the petitioner had used, displayed, or misused the licensed firearm in connection with the offence.

1. Whether mere registration or pendency of a criminal case empowers the licensing authority to suspend an arms licence under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, without recording a specific satisfaction that continuation of the licence is prejudicial to public peace or public safety?

2. Whether an order suspending an arms licence “until the decision of the criminal case,” without a finding regarding public peace or public safety and without an opportunity of hearing, is legally sustainable?

The Court applied Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, under which suspension or revocation of an arms licence is permissible where it is necessary for the security of public peace or public safety.

Mere involvement of a licence-holder in a criminal case is insufficient; the licensing authority must record a specific satisfaction, based on objective material, that continuation of the licence is detrimental to public peace or public safety.

The Court relied on Abdul Saleem v. State of M.P., 2019 (3) MPLJ 332; Gajendra Singh v. State of M.P., 2020 (2) MPLJ 441; Badshah alias Taj Mohammad v. State of M.P., 2007 (4) MPLJ 527; and Ajay Jayawant Bhosale v. Commissioner of Police, which held that mere registration of criminal cases, absent misuse of the weapon or a demonstrated threat to public peace or safety, cannot justify cancellation or suspension of an arms licence.

The Court further applied the distinction between “law and order” and “public order” explained in Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration, (1982) 2 SCC 403, requiring conduct having the potential to disturb the even tempo of community life.

An order must also comply with principles of natural justice and cannot impose an indefinite or disproportionate suspension.

The Collector’s order proceeded primarily on the fact that a criminal case had been registered against the petitioner; it contained no discussion of conduct demonstrating that the petitioner posed a threat to public peace or public safety.

There was also no finding that the licensed firearm had been used or misused in the alleged offence. Since the FIR related to a business transaction dispute and no nexus was shown between possession of the firearm and any disturbance of public peace or safety, the statutory satisfaction required under Section 17(3)(b) was absent.

The Court further held that suspending the licence “until the decision of the criminal case” amounted to an indefinite suspension and was disproportionate.

Although an appeal was available under Section 18, the Court entertained the writ petition because the order was passed in derogation of Section 17 and without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

The order dated 16 December 2025 was set aside as unsupported by the requisite finding regarding public peace or public safety, disproportionate, and violative of natural justice.

The respondents were directed to restore the petitioner’s arms licence and take necessary steps for return of the licensed firearm and ammunition, subject to compliance with statutory formalities.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the criminal case.