Santosh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33513
1 MCRC-18153-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
nd
ON THE 2 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 18153 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030101642026
SANTOSH GURJAR AND ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arvind Kumar Dwivedi - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Dinesh Savita - PP for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Harshat Ali - Advocate for respondents 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.343/2023 registered at Police Station - Sirol, District Gwalior for the
offence under Sections 308, 294, 34 of IPC and consequential proceedings
arising thereto, on the basis of compromise.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 15.09.2023 at about 3:30 PM, the
complainant, Smt. Bandana, was working as a labourer along with her
husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law at a plot situated in Pawan Sut
Colony, Sirole, belonging to Suraj Prajapati. At that time, accused Bharat
Gurjar, Ram Lakhan Gurjar and Santosh Gurjar, standing on opposite sides
of the road, started abusing each other in filthy language and firing gunshots.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 11/4/2026
10:35:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33513
2 MCRC-18153-2026
After some time, four other persons also arrived at the spot and started firing.

During the firing, one bullet pierced the complainant's saree and hit her
below the navel, causing an injury and bleeding. Consequently, she fell down
on the road. Thereafter, all the persons involved in the firing fled from the
spot. After regaining consciousness, she came to know their names from the
local residents. She was taken to District Hospital, Murar, Gwalior, by her
husband and sister-in-law for treatment, where her Dehati Nalishi was
recorded by Sub-Inspector Ramniwas Nanda. Accordingly, offence has been
registered.
3 . Applications (I.A. Nos.7872/2026 and 7873/2026) have been
preferred at the instance of parties and they want to settle the matter. The
applications are duly signed by respective parties and same are supported by
their affidavits.
4. The Principal Registrar of this Court has duly verified the parties,
contents of applications, 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 respondent No.2 and 3/complainants 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 11/4/2026
10:35:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33513
3 MCRC-18153-2026
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 shots at him, one bullet pierced the complainant's
saree and hit her below the navel, 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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 11/4/2026
10:35:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33513
4 MCRC-18153-2026
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 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
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, I.A. Nos.7872/2026 and 7873/2026 are also
disposed of.
15. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 11/4/2026
10:35:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33513
5 MCRC-18153-2026
the adjudication of the present petition and shall not prejudice the case of

either party before the Trial Court.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
(alok)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 11/4/2026
10:35:24 AM