Satpal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32151
1 MCRC-41384-2026
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. 41384 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030229722026
SATPAL SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nirmal Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Satendra Singh Sikarwar - PP for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Anand Singh Sikarwar - 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.3/2026 registered at Police Station - Jhansi Road, District Gwalior for the
offence under Sections 109(2), 296(A) and 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, Palvinder Singh @ Prafull @ Gandhi S/o Shri Darshan Singh, aged
around 24 years, R/o Village Bhadeshwar, Police Station Chinor, District
Gwalior, M.P., lodged a complaint at the Police Station Jhansi Road, District
Gwalior, stating that on 02.01.2026 at about 06:30 p.m., while the
complainant-respondent no. 2 and his friends Harshdeep’ and Rubal were
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-41384-2026
going from Gwalior to Chinor via Bypass Highway in a Brezza car driven by

Gurpal (respondent no. 3), and as soon as they reached Satau Mod Highway
Bypass, the driver of a white coloured Swift car bearing registration number
MP07 ZN 1641 stopped their car, and from white coloured Swift car, Satpal,
son of complaiant’s aunt Veeri Kaur, Gurpej, son of complainant’s other aunt
Raj Kaur, and his companions Sumit Jat and Arun Jat all four got down from
the car. That it is the story of the prosecution that while Gurpal got down
from their car and was talking, all four accused persons started abusing them,
and Gurpej, Arun, and Sumit stated that Gurpal interferes continuously in the
dispute between Gurpe] and Gandhi, and thereupon Gurpej, Arun, and Sumit
exhorted to kill, and Satpal pulled out a country-made firearm (katta) with
intention to kill and fired at them, wherein one bullet hit Gurpal on the left
side of his chest causing bleeding, due to an old monetary and personal
rivalry. That it is the story of the prosecution that the complainant and his
other friends got Gurpal immediately admitted in the Star Bundelkhand
Hospital on Jhansi Road, for the purpose of treatment. Accordingly, offence
has been registered.
3. Application (I.A. No.17644/2026) 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.
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.
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-41384-2026
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 left
side of his chest, 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
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-41384-2026
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
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
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-41384-2026
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.41381/2026.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
(alok)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 10/23/2026
11:40:24 AM