Offences under the Arms Act and serious crimes like attempt to murder are treated as crimes against society, not private disputes, and cannot be quashed by the High Court based on a compromise.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI , J.(ORAL)

1. The prayer in the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 1973 is for quashing of the FIR No.77 dated 12.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109, 3(5) of BNS and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh on the basis of compromise dated 13.03.2026 in cross case with all consequential proceedings arising thereof.

2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Raj Kumar @ Sanju, which reads as under:-

“To SHO Sir PS 31 Chandigarh Sir, I request that I Raj Kumar @ Sanju S/O Mohan Lal R/O H no. 71-a VIP Enclave, VIP Road, Zirakpur (PB) live with my family. Yesterday dated 11.04.25 at around 10:10 PM I was leaving from my above mentioned address to my in-laws in Karnal (HR) for marriage when I saw a speeding car behind which 4-5 people were throwing stones. They were running away with the car. I thought that the driver of the car has committed a crime because in our street, people often get phone stolen, speeding vehicles or motorcycles hurt someone. I chased the car with my Zypshy to stop it and when the car entered Chandigarh, I hit it with my Zypshy and I got down from the Zypshy and went near the car and asked the two clean shaven boys sitting in the car that why did you drive your car at such a high speed from our society. On hearing this, those two boys started kicking and punching me. Meanwhile, their third friend also came to the spot and he also started beating me along with his friends. One of the dumb men told his friend to take out his revolver and shoot him. If you don't want to shoot him, then give me the revolver, I will shoot him. Then one of those boys took out the revolver, pointed it towards me with the intention of killing me and fired the revolver but it did not fire, then that boy thrashed me with kicks and punches and pointed the revolver at me with the intention of killing me and continuously tried to fire bullets but the bullets did not fire. I will recognize those three boys when they come in front of me, legal action should be taken against those three boys. Sd Raj Kumar dated 12.04.2025 D.O.B 24.1.1995”

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is a case of version and cross-version. FIR No.76 under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 109, 51(2) (3) BNSS and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, 1959, stands registered against the present complainant party at the instance of petitioners’ side. A compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Therefore, the FIR be quashed on the basis of the said compromise.

4. The learned State counsel for U.T., Chandigarh, on the other hand, contends that it is a case of version and cross-version. In FIR No.77 i.e. the present case, the allegations are that the accused persons fired upon the complainant party but the weapon jammed because of which the bullets were not discharged. However, in FIR No.76 got registered at the instance of the petitioners’ side against the present complainant party, gun-shot injuries have been received by the complainant party therein i.e. the present petitioners side. An offence under Section 307 IPC cannot be quashed on the basis of the compromise as it is an offence against the society and not an outcome of a private dispute between the parties. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others , 2019(5) SCC 688, passed in criminal Appeal No.349 dated 05.03.2