Serious offences under the Arms Act cannot be quashed based on compromise due to their societal impact, as established by judicial precedents.

The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 237 of 2025 , dated 21.11. , registered at Police Station Sadar, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR based on the compromise effected between the parties.

2. It has been asserted that the FIR was lodged as a result of a misunderstanding. The petitioners did not intend to beat the respondent No. 2/informant. The petitioners had not used the weapon, and no case under the Arms Act was made out. Hence, the petition.

3. Mr Anirudh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the parties have settled the matter and the FIR should be quashed based on the compromise effected between the parties. No fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the matter. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed. He relied upon the judgments titled Naushey Ali & ors. Vs. State of U.P. and another 2025 INSC 182 , Shankar Singh Vs. State of HP and another : HHC : 12312 , Manpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab and ors. : PHHC :054473 and Shabna Abdulla Vs. UOI and ors. 2024 INSC 612 in support of his submission.

4. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioners are heinous and the same should not be quashed based on the compromise. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

5. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

6. Copy of the FIR (Annexure P-1) mentions that the informant was returning to his home on 20.11. 2025 . He was stopped near Dream Villa at about 12/12.30 by one person. Four other persons were accompanying him. All of them were armed with a rifle and a pistol. A girl was also accompanying them, who abused the informant. Aditya Shah and Narinder slapped the informant. Abhay (informant’s friend) objected, and he was pushed. Raj Bali Shah pointed a gun and threatened to kill the informant. Raj Bali Shah took out a pistol and fired in the air. Aditya Shah took out the rifle and threatened to kill the people who were present.

7. The allegations in the FIR clearly show that the petitioners had used the firearms to threaten the informant and other persons. Raj Bali Shah fired in the air. It remains to be determined whether the petitioners had a licence to possess those weapons. Therefore, prima facie, the offence involving the Arms Act is made out at this stage.

8. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303 : 2012 SCC OnLine SC 769 that the power to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. based on the compromise is different from the power of compounding under Section 320 of Cr.PC. It was observed:

“57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of the offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, the power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320. The court is guided solely and squarely thereby. On the other hand, the formation of opini