Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for Hquashing of F.I.R. No. 235 of 2025, dated 20.11.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 304(1), 238 & 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan, H.P, based on the compromise effected between the parties.

2. It has been asserted that the FIR was lodged as a result of a misunderstanding. No person was injured in the incident. The parties entered into a comprom.ise with the intervention of the respectable persons of the society. Hence, the petition was filed for quashing of the FIR and the consequential proceedings arising out of the F.I.R based on a compromise.

3. I have heard Mr Anirudh Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

4. Mr Anirudh Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the parties have settled the matter and nho fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with the matter. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the F.I.R as well as consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. be quashed.

5. Mr Parshant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioner is heinous and should not be quashed based on a compromise. He prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

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

7. The copy of the F.I.R (Annexure P-1) reads that the informant and accused were presenft in the University on 20.11.2025 at 1:10 pm. He was informed by Vijay Pathania about a quarrel. He reached the spot and found that a vehicle bearing registration No. HR-60E-3333 had reached the spot. Raj Bali, Bhushan, Aryan, Narender and Shilpi got out of the vehicle. Raj Bali had a pistol. The petitioner snatched pistol from Raj Bali and fired a shot in the air and ran away from the spot. The vehicle had left the spot. The police registered the F.I.R. and investigated the matter. The police recovered a pistol and cartridges from the petitioner.

8. The allegations in the F.I.R. show that the petitioner had fired the pistol. It is still to be determined whether the petitioner had a licence to possess the pistol. Therefore, prima facie, an offence involving the Arms Act is made out at this stage.

9. 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 jurisdiction to quash the proceedings under section 482 based on the compromise is different from the jurisdiction of compounding under section 320 of CrPC. It was obs.erved:

“57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compoufnding of the offence. They are different and not inoterchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding offences given to a court under Section 320 is materi ally different from the quashing of criminal proceedintgs by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent jurrisdiction. 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 opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence, criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power. However, the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of the indictment.

58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise