Vivek vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:21524
1 MCRC-8946-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8946 of 2026
VIVEK AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Romil Verma - GA for the State.
Shri Vivek Singh - Senior Advocate with Shri Vipin Parmar-
Advocate for the respondent no.2.
(Heard on: 24.07.2026)
(Delivered on: 04.08.2026)
ORDER
This present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred seeking quashment of the FIR
giving rise to Crime No.184/2025, dated 06.04.2025, registered at Police
Station Tejaji Nagar, District Indore (MP) for the commission of the offence
punishable under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Thereafter, a final report No.01/2026 was filed on 09.01.2026 for the
offences punishable under Sections 105 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. The petition also seeks
quashment of the consequential proceedings pending in Regular Criminal
Trial No.335 of 2026 before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 04-08-2026
19:56:25

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:21524
2 MCRC-8946-2026
First Class, Indore (MP) against the applicants/accused persons.

2. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass that one Madanlal
Yadav, son of Bhagirath Yadav, a resident of Umri Kheda, Khandwa Road,
Indore, (MP) was brought to M.Y. Hospital, Indore, at about 7:30 p.m. on
05.04.2025 who already succumbs to gunshot injuries. It was initially
intimated to the hospital authorities that the deceased had sustained the
gunshot injury while cleaning a gun. An enquiry conducted pursuant to
unnatural death Case No.002/2025, registered at Police Station- Tejaji Nagar,
District Indore (Urban), revealed that the cause of death was shock and
haemorrhage resulting from a firearm injury to the thoracic region of the
body. The enquiry further disclosed that, at about 8:30 p.m. on 05.04.2025,
while the deceased was taking water near the pipeline in front of the gate of
J.J. Farm, situated at J.J. Public School, Village Umri Kheda where the
Madanlal and his wife were residing and falls within the territorial
jurisdiction of Police Station- Tejaji Nagar, District Indore (MP). It was
further disclosed that the incident occurred when the applicants were
engaged in target practice shooting using a 0.32 bore pistol issued to
applicant No.1, Vivek Singhal, under Arms Licence
No.28/Indore/Home/2022 valid up to 09.05.2025. The C.C.T.V. footage
collected during the investigation also revealed that the applicants were
engaged in target practice shooting at the place of occurrence. The
investigation further revealed that the bullet which caused the death of
Madanlal Yadav was allegedly fired from the point where the applicants
were carrying out target practice and travelled to the place marked as Point
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 04-08-2026
19:56:25

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:21524
3 MCRC-8946-2026
'F' in the spot map prepared on 05.04.2025 flying from the boundary wall of

four feet and piercing the grill of plastic sheet before striking the deceased. It
is further alleged that when the wife of the deceased questioned the
applicants as to why they had shot her husband then applicant No.1, Vivek
Singhal took the injured Madanlala Yadav in his car to M.Y. Hospital,
Indore and informed the hospital authorities that the deceased had sustained
the gunshot injury while cleaning a gun. Leela Bai, wife of the deceased
immediately objected to the said version and stated that the information
given by Vivek Singhal is false. Thereafter, Vivek left the hospital. During
the course of investigation, a rifle was also seized from the room of applicant
No.1, Vivek Singhal, at about 4:25 p.m. on 11.04.2025.
3. The present petition has been preferred primarily on the ground that
the FIR and the material collected during the investigation, even if accepted
in their entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of the offence
alleged against the applicants. It is contended that the initial information
received through the telephone operator indicated that the deceased had been
brought to the hospital by his son Ashish Yadav and not by applicant No.1,
Vivek Singhal and contrary to this on the next day of alleged incident the
complainant made a false oral complaint against the applicant no.1 Vivek
Singhal and made his entire family accused in the commission of an alleged
offence. Bare perusal of the spot map which reflected that, there is no such
evidence available which shows that the act by which the death is caused is
done with the intention of causing death or of causing such bodily injury as
is likely to cause death. It is clear from the entire charge-sheet that there is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 04-08-2026
19:56:25

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:21524
4 MCRC-8946-2026
no previous enemity between both the parties hence, in the present case the

offence punishable under section 105 of the BNS, 2023 does not attracted.
On a close observation of the same, prima facie it appears that the place
Mark "J" from where the firing took place and the place Mark "A" where the
deceased was shot the person who fired the shot who was situated at Mark
"A" prima facie had the knowledge that a person was standing at Mark "J"
and filling water, does not appears to be a normally possible situation and
this fact of knowledge of the above nature is certainly a subject matter of
evidence and in the context of the circumstances and facts present in the
case, this matter can be determined only during the evidence in the process
of trial whether the act impugned against the applicant/accused no.1 appears
to be within the ambit of Section 105 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or
appears to be within the ambit of Section 106 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023. The allegation against the applicant no.1 is that, he fired a gun shot and
the same was hit to the deceased and against the applicant no.2 & 3 having
no allegation of commission of an alleged offence. Even then the
investigation officer made an accused to the applicants no.2 & 3. In this
case, only one gun has been recovered from the possession of
applicants/accused even then the investigation officer made an accused to the
applicants no.2 & 3. There is an absence of corroborative evidence in respect
of commission of an alleged offence & the applicants/accused could not be
prosecuted. Counsel for the applicants have relied upon Gian Singh Vs. State
of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SC 303, Rajat Kumar and Another Vs. State
of Haryana and another 2026 PHHC-072567, Ganesh Kumar and another
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 04-08-2026
19:56:25

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:21524
5 MCRC-8946-2026
Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others 2026 HHC-20998 and Sofik Ali

and Others v. The State of Assam, 2025 GAHC-01007700.
4. Apart from the ground raised above in this petition the prayer has
also been sought on the ground that wife of the deceased Madanlal namely
Leela Yadav and Sons Manoj Yadav and Ashish Yadav have entered into
compromise with the applicants and compromise have been duly verified by
the Principal Registrar of the Court on 12.05.2026.
5. Heard.
5. Perused the record.
6. Two questions arises for consideration in the present case:-
(i) Whether the material collected during the course of investigation
satisfies parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal in AIR 1992 SC 604 regarding
quashment of the FIR?
(ii) If not then whether the applicant can seek the quashment of the FIR
and subsequent proceedings on the basis of a compromise arrived at between
the parties?
Question No. (i)
7. In State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR
1992 SC 604 Apex Court has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./Article 226 of the Constitution in the context of
quashing the criminal proceedings. In paragraph 102, Apex Court
enumerated seven categories of cases where power can be exercised under
Article 226/Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court for quashing the criminal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 04-08-2026
19:56:25

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:21524
6 MCRC-8946-2026
proceedings. Para 102 is as follows:-

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of
the various relevant provisions of the Code
under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either
to prevent abuse of the process of any court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to lay down
any precise, clearly sufficiently defined
channelised and adn inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if
any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 04-08-2026
19:56:25

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:21524
7 MCRC-8946-2026
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where ther is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act(under criminal
which proceeding a is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/o where there is specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
malafide proceeding instituted and/or with
attended where is with the maliciously an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 04-08-2026
19:56:25

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:21524
8 MCRC-8946-2026
to private and personal grudge.”

8. In this case, the prosecution is not initiated with malafide intention.
The prosecution case rest on the material disclosing that they were practicing
target shooting without getting prior license as required under rule 38 of the
Arms Rules, 2016 and without observing required safety standards. The
C.C.T.V. footage collected during the investigation prima facie discloses that
applicant No.2 was also participating in the target practice shooting and also
make fire. Applicant No.3 was also present at the spot and was actively
involved in the entire exercise. The contention raised in ground No.(vii) of
the petition, based on spot map that knowledge that, a person was standing at
Mark "J" and filling water this does not appear to be a normally possible
situation and this fact of knowledge of the above nature is certainly a subject
matter of evidence and in the context of the circumstances and facts present
in the case, this matter can be determined only during the evidence in the
process of trial whether the act impugned against the applicant no.1 appears
to be within the ambit of Section 105 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or
appears to be within the ambit of Section 106 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 does not support quashment of FIR.
9. Practicing Target shooting without obtaining requisite permission
and without adhering to necessary safety measures is an act that affects
society at large. Such an offence cannot be treated as one of a purely private
nature, particularly where the victim has lost his life. The allegations in the
FIR and the other materials filed alongwith the final report under section 193
of the B.N.S.S., 2023 does not satisfy the criteria no.2 of Bhajan Lal (Supra)
that the allegations in the FIR and other materials don't discloses cognizable
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 04-08-2026
19:56:25

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:21524
9 MCRC-8946-2026
offence. The panchnama and video footage is sufficient to establish the

presence of all the applicants at the spot with their overt act. Analysis of
individual role is not permissible while considering the prayer for quashment
of FIR and subsequent proceedings. These arguments may be addressed at
the stage of framing of charges by seeking discharge. Accordingly, the FIR
of crime No.184/2025 registered at Police Station- Tejaji Nagar, District
Indore (MP) cannot be quashed on the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal
(Supra).
Question No. (ii)
10. Now come to the second limb of the applicants submissions
whether the FIR in Crime No.184/2025, dated 06.04.2025, registered at
Police Station Tejaji Nagar, District Indore (MP) and all consequential
proceedings deserve to be quashed on the basis of the compromise entered
into between the applicants and the legal heirs of the deceased.
11. The Apex Court in Gian Singh (Supra) quashing of offence or
criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and
victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. This Court,
highlighting the difference, had the following to say:-:
“57. Quashing of offence or criminal
proceedings on the ground of settlement
between an offender and victim is not the
same thing as compounding of offence. They
are different and not interchangeable. Strictly
speaking, the power of compounding of
offences given to a court under Section 320 is
materially different from the quashing of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 04-08-2026
19:56:25

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:21524
10 MCRC-8946-2026
criminal proceedings by the High Court in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In
compounding of offences, power of a
criminal court is circumscribed by the
provisions contained in Section 320 and the
court is guided solely and squarely thereby
while, on the other hand, the formation of
opinion by the High Court for quashing a
criminal offence or 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
although the ultimate consequence may be
acquittal or dismissal of 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 in futility and justice in the case
demands that the dispute between the parties
is put to an end and peace is restored;
securing the ends of justice being the ultimate
guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts
which have harmful effect on the public and
consist in wrongdoing that seriously
endangers and threatens the well-being of the
society and it is not safe to leave the crime-
doer only because he and the victim have
settled the dispute amicably or that the victim
has been paid compensation, yet certain

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 04-08-2026
19:56:25

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:21524
11 MCRC-8946-2026
crimes have been made compoundable in
law, with or without the permission of the
court. In respect of serious offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences
of mental depravity under IPC or offences of
moral turpitude under special statutes, like the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working
in that capacity, the settlement between the
offender and the victim can have no legal
sanction at all. However, certain offences
which overwhelmingly and predominantly
bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil,
mercantile, commercial, financial,
partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony,
particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the
family dispute, where the wrong is basically
to the victim and the offender and the victim
have settled all disputes between them
amicably, irrespective of the fact that such
offences have not been made compoundable,
the High Court may within the framework of
its inherent power, quash the criminal
proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it
is satisfied that on the face of such
settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of
the offender being convicted and by not
quashing the criminal proceedings, justice
shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be
defeated. The above list is illustrative and not
exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own
facts and no hard-and-fast category can be

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 04-08-2026
19:56:25

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:21524
12 MCRC-8946-2026
prescribed.”

(Emphasis supplied)
12. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others, (2019)
5 SCC 688, after discussing the ratio in Narinder Singh and Others vs. State
of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and other judgments, Apex Court
held:-
" 15. Considering the law on the point and
the other decisions of this Court on the point,
referred to hereinabove, it is observed and
held as under:
15.1.That the power conferred under Section
482 of the Code to quash the criminal
proceedings for the non-compoundable
offences under Section 320 of the Code can
be exercised having overwhelmingly and
predominantly the civil character, particularly
those arising out of commercial transactions
or arising out of matrimonial relationship or
family disputes and when the parties have
resolved the entire dispute amongst
themselves;

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in
those prosecutions which involved heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such
offences are not private in nature and have a
serious impact on society;

15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be
exercised for the offences under the special
statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 04-08-2026
19:56:25

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:21524
13 MCRC-8946-2026
or the offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity are not to be
quashed merely on the basis of compromise
between the victim and the offender;

15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the
Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of
heinous and serious offences and therefore
are to be treated as crime against the society
and not against the individual alone, and
therefore, the criminal proceedings for the
offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the
Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact
on the society cannot be quashed in exercise
of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on
the ground that the parties have resolved their
entire dispute amongst themselves. However,
the High Court would not rest its decision
merely because there is a mention of Section
307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed
under this provision. It would be open to the
High Court to examine as to whether
incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for
the sake of it or the prosecution has collected
sufficient evidence, which if proved, would
lead to framing the charge under Section 307
IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the
High Court to go by the nature of injury
sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on
the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of
weapons used, etc. However, such an
exercise by the High Court would be
permissible only after the evidence is

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 04-08-2026
19:56:25

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:21524
14 MCRC-8946-2026
collected after investigation and the charge-
sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during
the trial. Such exercise is not permissible
when the matter is still under investigation.
Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras
29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in
Narinder Singh should be read harmoniously
and to be read as a whole and in the
circumstances stated hereinabove;

15.5. While exercising the power under
Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal
proceedings in respect of non-compoundable
offences, which are private in nature and do
not have a serious impact on society, on the
ground that there is a settlement/compromise
between the victim and the offender, the High
Court is required to consider the antecedents
of the accused; the conduct of the accused,
namely, whether the accused was absconding
and why he was absconding, how he had
managed with the complainant to enter into a
compromise, etc.”

(Emphasis supplied)
13. In the instant case, the offences punishable under Section 304 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now corresponding to Section 105 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 are
admittedly non-compoundable in nature.
14. The Apex Court in Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 552, and subsequently in Dakshaben Vs.
State of Gujarat and Others, (2022) 5 SCC 538, has not approved the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 04-08-2026
19:56:25

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:21524
15 MCRC-8946-2026
compromise in case of grave and serious non-compoundable which impact

the society. Informant and/or complainant only has the right of hearing, to
the extent of ensuring that justice is done by conviction and punishment of
the offender. An informant has no right in law to withdraw the complaint of
a non- compoundable offence of a grave, serious and/or heinous nature,
which impacts society.
15. These offences are not those offences which are arising out of
commercial transaction or matrimonial relationship or family disputes. On
the contrary, offences of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
punishable under section 105 of the BNS, 2023 coupled with the offence
under section 238 of the BNS, 2023 and section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959
falls within the category of henious and serious offences of mental depravity.
These offences are not private in nature. These offences have serious impact
on the society. "Silence of grave" cannot be substituted by signature of heirs.
Hence, First Information Report of this case as well as subsequent
proceedings cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. Accordingly,
MCRC is dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
ajit

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 04-08-2026
19:56:25