MP HC Keeps Attempt-To-Murder FIR Alive After Driver Is Allegedly Shot In The Chest, Despite Parties’ Settlement

The petitioners sought to quash FIR Crime No. 3/2026, registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior, under Sections 109(2), 296(A) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and the consequential proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), relying on a compromise with the complainant and another respondent.

The FIR alleged that, following an altercation, petitioner Satpal fired a country-made firearm at Gurpal, striking him in the left side of the chest; other accused were alleged to have exhorted the attack.

The Principal Registrar verified that the compromise was voluntary and free from threat, inducement or coercion.

1. Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings could be quashed under Section 528 BNSS on the basis of the parties’ compromise, despite allegations of a firearm attack with intent to kill.

2. Whether the compromise sufficiently displaced the public-interest considerations arising from the alleged serious offence.

Section 528 BNSS confers inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice; its exercise in a compromise-based quashing petition requires regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.

In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Supreme Court cautioned that serious offences such as attempt to murder should not ordinarily be quashed merely because the parties have settled, and that the court should examine whether the allegation is supported by the evidence and circumstances.

The Court also relied on Vijay Kumar Kela & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2026 INSC 588, which reiterates that heinous or serious offences with a significant societal impact should not be quashed solely on settlement, given the overriding public interest in prosecuting serious crimes.

The Court treated the allegations as disclosing more than a private dispute: the petitioners were alleged to have used a firearm and fired at the injured with the intention of causing death, with the shot striking his chest.

Applying the principles in Laxmi Narayan and Vijay Kumar Kela, it held that the alleged conduct’s seriousness and public dimension outweighed the parties’ subsequent willingness to settle. The voluntary nature of the compromise did not, by itself, justify exercising the inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.

The petition was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of.

The Court also recorded that the counter-case, M.Cr.C. No. 41381 of 2026, had been dismissed that day.