Serious firearm-based attempt-to-murder allegations cannot be quashed solely on the basis of compromise.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, of FIR Crime No. 122/2024, registered at Police Station Sonagir, District Datia, under Sections 109(1), 296 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and consequential proceedings, on the basis of a compromise.

The FIR alleged that, on 17 November 2024, the petitioners fired at the complainant, and that a shot fired by Sumit Bhargava struck the complainant in the chest, causing him to lose consciousness and require hospitalisation.

The parties’ compromise applications and affidavits were verified by the Principal Registrar, who reported that the settlement was voluntary.

The complainant supported the petition, while the State opposed it.

Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings alleging an armed attempt on the complainant’s life could be quashed under Section 528 BNSS solely on the basis of the parties’ compromise.

Whether the alleged offence’s seriousness and its impact on the public interest precluded quashing notwithstanding the complainant’s willingness to settle.

Section 528 BNSS confers inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, but the power to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement depends on the nature and gravity of the alleged offence.

In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Supreme Court cautioned that serious offences, including attempt to murder, should not ordinarily be quashed merely because the parties have settled; the court must consider 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 reiterated that heinous or serious offences with a substantial societal impact should not be quashed solely on settlement, given the overriding public interest in prosecuting serious crimes.

The Court considered the allegations that firearms were used and shots were fired at the complainant with the intention of causing his death.

It held that, at this stage, those allegations disclosed a serious offence and an attempt on life, rather than a dispute of an overwhelmingly private or civil character.

The complainant’s voluntary settlement did not erase the alleged offence’s gravity or the public interest in its prosecution; accordingly, the compromise was insufficient to justify exercising the inherent jurisdiction.

The interlocutory applications were also disposed of, and the Court clarified that its observations would not prejudice either party before the Trial Court.