Case at a Glance
Two accused sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 308, 294 and 34 IPC on the basis of a compromise with the complainant, a woman labourer allegedly hit below the navel by a bullet when shots were fired at a plot in Gwalior in 2023. The compromise was verified as voluntary by the Principal Registrar. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, relying on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 03 SC CK 0018 and Vijay Kumar Kela v. CBI, held that an alleged firearm attack and attempt on life is not a purely private dispute, and that the compromise does not justify quashing under Section 528 BNSS. The petition was dismissed.
According to the prosecution, on 15 September 2023 at about 3:30 pm, at a plot in Pawan Sut Colony, Sirol, Gwalior, the accused exchanged abuse with the complainant’s side and fired gunshots, after which four other persons arrived and also fired. A bullet pierced the complainant’s saree and hit her below the navel, causing bleeding. An FIR was registered under Sections 308, 294 and 34 IPC.
The accused filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing on the basis of a compromise. Applications supported by affidavits were filed, the Principal Registrar verified that the compromise was voluntary, and counsel for the complainant supported the prayer.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can an FIR alleging a firearm attack and an attempt to commit culpable homicide be quashed under Section 528 BNSS merely because the parties have compromised?
Gravity of the Offence Decides, Not the Settlement
The Court applied State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, which holds that serious offences such as attempt to murder should not ordinarily be quashed merely on settlement, and Vijay Kumar Kela v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2026) 05 SC CK 0530, under which courts must weigh the nature and gravity of the offence before quashing on compromise.
It held that the dispute was not purely private or civil, since the allegations involve the use of a firearm and an attempt on life. A later compromise alone is not a ground to quash where the offence affects society at large, and the settlement did not justify use of the inherent jurisdiction. The Court clarified that its observations are confined to this petition and will not prejudice either side at trial.
What the Court Actually Held
- An alleged firearm attack and attempt on life is not a purely private dispute between the parties.
- A compromise, even one verified as voluntary, is not by itself a ground to quash such an FIR under Section 528 BNSS.
- Courts must consider the nature and gravity of the offence and its impact on society before quashing on settlement.
- The petition was dismissed; the observations will not prejudice either party before the trial court.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It draws a clear line between settleable private disputes and violent offences involving firearms.
- It applies Laxmi Narayan under the new BNSS quashing provision.
- It tells litigants that registrar-verified compromises do not guarantee quashing in serious cases.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Accused and Complainants
- A settlement may help at sentencing or bail, but may not end a case involving firearms.
- Quashing on compromise is more likely in private, civil-flavoured disputes.
- The trial will continue and the evidence will be tested there.
For Counsel
- Assess gravity and use of weapons before advising a compromise petition.
- Cite Vijay Kumar Kela v. Central Bureau of Investigation on weighing the offence’s gravity.
- Check whether the charge-sheet and medical evidence support the section invoked.
Key Takeaways
- Compromise does not wipe out the seriousness of a firearm attack.
- Section 528 BNSS quashing is guided by the gravity of the offence.
- The trial will proceed despite the settlement.
- The Court’s views will not prejudice the trial.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an attempt to murder or Section 308 IPC case be quashed on compromise?
Ordinarily not. Following State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, the Court held such serious offences affect society and a compromise alone is not enough.
What is Section 528 BNSS?
It preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, the successor to Section 482 CrPC.
Did the verification of the compromise by the Registrar help?
The compromise was found voluntary, but the Court still refused to quash because of the gravity of the allegations.
Conclusion
The High Court refused to let a private settlement close a case in which shots were allegedly fired and a woman was hit. The matter will now go to trial on its merits.
Practical takeaway: Before filing a compromise-based quashing petition, check whether the case involves weapons or an attempt on life; if it does, the settlement is unlikely to be enough.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com