MP HC Refuses To Quash FIR Despite Settlement Over Alleged Gunshot Wound To Man’s Knee, Citing Attempt-To-Kill Allegations

In brief

The question

1. Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings could be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS on the basis of the parties’ compromise, despite allegations of an attempted killing involving a firearm

The court held

The Court held that the compromise did not justify quashing the FIR or consequential proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS.

It also directed

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

The Court also recorded that the counter-case, M.Cr.C. No. 41384 of 2026, had been dismissed that day

01Facts

The petitioners sought to quash an FIR registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior, under Sections 324(4), 109(2), 296(A) and 3(5) of the BNS, along with consequential proceedings, on the basis of a compromise

p. 1

The prosecution alleged that, following an altercation arising from prior animosity, petitioner Gurpal fired a gun at complainant Sumit Jat with intent to kill him, injuring his right knee; the accused were also alleged to have damaged a car

¶ 2

The parties executed a compromise, supported by affidavits, and the Principal Registrar verified that it was voluntary

¶ 3–4

The complainant supported the petitioners’ request to quash the FIR

¶ 5–7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings could be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS on the basis of the parties’ compromise, despite allegations of an attempted killing involving a firearm

¶ 8–13

ii.2. Whether the alleged offence’s serious nature and public-interest implications precluded quashing solely because the complainant had agreed to settle

¶ 9–12

03Law Applied

Section 528 of the BNSS confers inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings, but compromise alone does not justify quashing where the allegations disclose a serious offence affecting society at large

¶ 9, 13

Relying on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Court stated that heinous or serious offences, including attempt to murder, should not ordinarily be quashed merely on settlement; the court must consider whether the allegation is supported by the evidence and circumstances

¶ 10

The Court also relied on Vijay Kumar Kela & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2026 INSC 588, for the principle that the nature and gravity of the offence and the public interest in prosecuting serious crimes weigh against quashing on the basis of settlement

¶ 11

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 324 Section 109 Section 296 Section 3 Section 307

04Reasoning

The FIR allegations, considered at this stage, described the use of a firearm and a shot allegedly fired with intent to kill, causing injury to the complainant’s knee

¶ 8, 12

The Court therefore found that the dispute was not overwhelmingly private or civil in character and that the alleged offence implicated public interest. The subsequent compromise did not remove the alleged offence’s seriousness or provide sufficient grounds to exercise the inherent jurisdiction to quash

¶ 9, 12–13