Disposed¶36

Mr R Raghavendra v. the Commissioner of Police

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2025WP/10335/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), WP No. 10335 of 2025 (GM-Police), Justice B M Shyam Prasad, 19.09.2025. Refusal of gun/Arms licence by endorsement dated 04.03.2025 of Commissioner of Police; writ under Articles 226/227; Court relegated petitioner to appellate remedy under Rule 105 of Arms Rules, 2016 (application considered under Arms Act, 1959); petition disposed of with liberty, endorsement not quashed. Reference to pending O.S. No.481/2007 and financial transaction threshold of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy under Rule 105 of the Arms Rules, 2016; the impugned endorsement was not quashed. ¶36

Mr R Raghavendra Vs the Commissioner of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:37575 WP No. 10335 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 10335 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. R RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O.LATE.N.RAJANNA, RESIDING AT NO. 196/1, 16^TH MAIN, 27^TH CROSS, BSK 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-70,

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH N. RAJ., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ALI ASKAR ROAD, VASANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY SPP

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:37575 WP No. 10335 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DT. 04/03/2025 AS PER ANNX-K BEARING NO.COPBCP/ARMS/ARMS(FAL)/47/2024 DATED 04/03/2025 REFUSING TO ISSUE GUN LICENSE TO THE PETITIONER AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO FURTHER CONSIDER HIS APPLICATION FOR GUN LICENSE AS PER HIS APPLICATION DT. 02/12/2024 AS PER ANNX-J.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR

¶23

PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:37575 WP No. 10335 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner, a resident of DVG Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru, is aggrieved by the Endorsement dated 04.03.2025 [Annexure-K] issued by the respondent, and the respondent has issued this endorsement informing the petitioner that his application for Arms license is rejected opining that there is no threat to the petitioner's life as alleged and that his financial transactions are not above Rs. 5,00,000/-. Sri Prashant N Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Rahul Cariappa, a learned Additional Government Advocate who is called upon to accept notice for the respondent, are heard for final disposal of the petition.

¶30

Sri Rahul Cariappa submits that the petitioner’s application for license is considered under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and the petitioner has statutory remedy under Rule 105 of the Arms Rules, 2016 [for short, 'the Rules' ], and as such, this

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:37575 WP No. 10335 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Court may consider relegating the petitioner to the statutory remedy.

¶35

The petitioner has referred to the pending dispute in O.S. No.481/2007 and certain alleged measures by the defendant in such suit and his family members to defame calling him an offender in law. If the respondent, as the original authority, has decided on whether there must be a Arms license for the petitioner based on the assessment of the circumstances and certain parameters, and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he must avail appellate remedy under Rule 105 of the Rules as all circumstances are verified in such proceedings.

¶36

With liberty in this regard, the petition stands disposed of.

¶37

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶38

AN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Mr R Raghavendra v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr R Raghavendra v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Innofive Quality Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Reserve Bank of India

Smt. Pallavi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Sangeetha Vs the Recovery OFFICER-2

Sri Karthik Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Suresh B D Vs Deputy Conservator of Forest

Sri. Ahmed Shariff Vs Union of India