Gurpal Singh Chehal Alias Girpal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32151
1 MCRC-41381-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
th
ON THE 16 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 41381 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030229702026
GURPAL SINGH CHEHAL ALIAS GIRPAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anand Singh Sikarwar - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Satendra Singh Sikarwar - PP for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Nirmal Kumar Sharma - Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3.
ORDER
The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners under
Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime
No.6/2026 registered at Police Station - Jhansi Road, District Gwalior for the
offence under Sections 324(4), 109(2), 296(A), 3(5) of BNS and
consequential proceedings arising thereto, on the basis of compromise.
2. According to the prosecution case, the complainant-respondent
no.2, Sumit Jat S/o Shri Albel Singh Jat, Age 30 Years, R/o Urva Thana
Chinnore, District Gwalior, on 02.01.2026 along with his friends Arun Jat
and Satpal Randhawa, was returning from Gwalior to his village Urva
Chinnore in Satpal's Swift Car having number MP07ZN1641, in which
Satpal was driving and complainant was sitting in the front passenger seat
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 10/23/2026
11:40:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32151
2 MCRC-41381-2026
whereas Arun was sitting in the backseat of the car. It is the story of the

prosecution that when their car reached Saatau Mode Bypass, the
complainant asked his friends to stop the car, as he needed to pee. That, it is
the story of the prosecution that around 6:30 PM, another car, Breeza, came
to a halt at the same place from which the accused persons Gurpal,
Harshdeep, Roobal, and Palvinder came out and started abusing the
complainant over old animosity. That it is the story of the prosecution that
upon hearing the commotion, the complainant's friends Satpal and Arun
came out of the car. All the accused persons started abusing the
complainant's friends as well. Just when the complainant and his friends
urged the accused persons not to use such derogatory language, the accused
person Gurpal took out a Katta (Gun) from his waist and fired it with the
intention of killing the complainant, from which the complainant got injured
on his right knee. His knee started bleeding, and the accused persons
gravely damaged the Swift car of Satpal to the extent that the complainant
and his friends were unable to use the car. That it is the story of the
prosecution that then Arun Jat called the complainant's brother, Pawan Jat,
over mobile and narrated the whole incident to him, upon hearing which
Pawan Jat reached the location in his Kia Sonnet car and took the
complainant and his friends to Trauma Center JAH Gwalior for treatment.
Accordingly, offence has been registered.
3. Application (I.A. No.16822/2026) has been preferred at the instance
of parties and they want to settle the matter. The application is duly signed
by respective parties and same are supported by their affidavits.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 10/23/2026
11:40:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32151
3 MCRC-41381-2026
4. The Principal Registrar of this Court has duly verified the parties,

contents of application, intent and signatures of parties. Report is attached,
same is perused and it appears that compromise has been reached between
the parties voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that compromise has been
arrived at petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3/complainant and they want
to settle their dispute between them. Therefore, petitioners prayed
for quashing of the F.I.R. registered against them.
6. Counsel for the complainant argued in support of petitioners' prayer
for compromise. He referred the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 and
3/complainant and they are ready to settle the matter.
7 . Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
documents appended thereto.
8. From the aforesaid facts and the allegations contained in the FIR, it
is apparent that the dispute is not of a purely private or civil nature. The
allegations against the petitioners are that, with an intention to cause the
death of the injured, fired gun shots at the injured which hit him on his right
knee, resulting in bleeding injuries. Thus, the allegations disclose the
commission of a serious offence involving use of a firearm and an attempt
upon the life of the injured.
9. It is true that the parties have entered into a compromise and the
complainant has expressed his willingness to settle the dispute. However, the
mere fact that the parties have subsequently arrived at a compromise cannot,
by itself, be a ground for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 10/23/2026
11:40:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32151
4 MCRC-41381-2026
528 of the BNSS where the allegations disclose a serious offence having an

impact on society at large.
10. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019)
5 SCC 688, the Supreme Court cautioned that heinous/serious offences such
as attempt to murder should not ordinarily be quashed merely on the basis of
settlement. The Court must examine whether the Section 307 allegation is
actually supported by the evidence and circumstances. This principle
continues to be applied to Section 109 BNS.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its recent judgment in 2026 INSC
588, decided on 29.05.2026 (Vijay Kumar Kela & Anr. vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr.), has reiterated that while exercising inherent
jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement,
the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. It
has been held that heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity
or offences which have a serious impact upon society cannot appropriately
be quashed merely because the victim or the parties have settled the dispute.
The Supreme Court has further observed that the continuation of prosecution
in such cases is founded upon the overriding element of public interest in
bringing the offenders of serious crimes to justice.
12. In the present case, the prosecution allegations, at this stage,
disclose that the petitioners allegedly used a firearm and fired shots at the
injured with the intention of causing his death. The nature and manner of the
alleged occurrence, therefore, cannot be said to have an overwhelmingly
civil or private character. The fact that the injured/complainant has entered
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 10/23/2026
11:40:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32151
5 MCRC-41381-2026
into a compromise subsequent to the occurrence does not efface the

seriousness of the alleged offence or the element of public interest involved
in its prosecution.
13. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
compromise arrived at between the parties does not furnish a sufficient
ground for exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the
BNSS to quash the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings.
14. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby
dismissed. Consequently, pending I.As. are also disposed of.
15. It is made clear that today this Court has already dismissed the
counter-case bearing M.Cr.C.No.41384/2026.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
(alok)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 10/23/2026
11:40:24 AM