Compromise cannot erase culpable homicide case after fatal shooting during unsafe target practice, rules MP High Court

The applicants invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of Crime No. 184/2025 registered at Police Station Tejaji Nagar, Indore, initially for an offence under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the consequential proceedings in Regular Criminal Trial No. 335/2026.

The deceased, Madanlal Yadav, suffered a fatal firearm injury on 5 April 2025 while taking water near a pipeline at J.J. Farm, Umri Kheda, Indore.

The prosecution alleged that the applicants were conducting target practice with a licensed .32-bore pistol without adequate safety precautions, and that a bullet fired during the practice travelled over a boundary wall and struck the deceased.

CCTV footage, the spot map, and other investigation material allegedly showed the applicants’ presence and involvement in the shooting exercise.

A final report was filed under Sections 105 and 238 of the BNS and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The applicants contended that the material did not establish the requisite intention or knowledge for culpable homicide, that applicants Nos. 2 and 3 had no individual overt act attributed to them, and that the parties had entered into a compromise verified by the Principal Registrar of the Court.

1. Whether the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence warranting continuation of the criminal proceedings under the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

2. Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings could be quashed under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction on the basis of the compromise between the applicants and the deceased’s legal heirs.

The Court applied Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, concerning the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, it held that quashing may be justified where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offence, where the material does not disclose a cognizable offence, where the allegations are inherently absurd, or where the prosecution is manifestly mala fide.

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, quashing on the basis of settlement is distinct from statutory compounding and may be exercised only where continuation of the proceedings would be futile and the dispute is predominantly private in nature.

Applying State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Court reiterated that inherent powers should not ordinarily be used to quash heinous or serious offences, offences involving mental depravity, offences affecting society, or offences under special statutes such as the Arms Act merely because the parties have compromised.

The Court also relied on Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 552, and Dakshaben v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 5 SCC 538, for the principle that heirs or informants cannot withdraw or neutralise serious, non-compoundable offences affecting society through a private settlement.

The Court held that the prosecution material did not fall within any of the Bhajan Lal categories warranting quashing.

The CCTV footage, spot panchnama, and other material prima facie indicated that the applicants were conducting target practice without the requisite permission and without observing necessary safety measures; the footage also allegedly showed participation by applicants Nos. 2 and 3.

The question whether applicant No. 1 possessed the knowledge necessary for an offence under Section 105 BNS, or whether the conduct amounted to an offence under Section 106 BNS, involved factual assessment unsuitable for determination at the quashing stage.

Similarly, the applicants’ arguments concerning the individual roles of applicants Nos. 2 and 3 could be raised at the stage of framing of charges or discharge, since the High Court could not undertake a detailed evaluation of individual liability while considering quashing of the FIR.

The alleged conduct involved the death of a person through unsafe firearm use and therefore affected public safety and society at large, rather than constituting a private dispute.

Consequently, the compromise could not justify quashing the proceedings, particularly because the alleged offences under Section 105 BNS and Section 30 of the Arms Act were serious and non-compoundable.

It found that the FIR and investigation material prima facie disclosed cognizable and serious offences, and that the applicants’ factual and role-based defences required consideration during trial or at the stage of discharge, not in a petition for quashing.

It further held that the offences under Sections 105 and 238 BNS and Section 30 of the Arms Act were not predominantly private in nature and could not be quashed merely because the deceased’s legal heirs had entered into a compromise.

The petition under Section 528 BNSS was accordingly dismissed, and the FIR in Crime No. 184/2025 and the consequential criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.