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

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the BNSS to seek quashing of an FIR registered at Police Station Tharet, District Datia, for offences under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the BNS, and consequential proceedings, on the basis of a compromise.

The FIR alleged that the petitioners, armed with firearms, attacked Ritik Rathore and Nirbhay Gurjar; shots allegedly injured both, and the occurrence was witnessed by others.

The complainants and petitioners entered into a compromise, which the Principal Registrar verified as voluntary and free from coercion.

The State opposed quashing, while the complainants supported it.

1. Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings for the alleged offence under Section 109(1) of the BNS could be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS on the basis of a compromise between the parties.

2. Whether the alleged use of firearms and attempt on the injured person’s life made the offence sufficiently serious and public in character to preclude quashing despite the compromise.

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

Relying on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Court stated that serious offences such as attempt to murder should not ordinarily be quashed solely on settlement; the Court must assess 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, for the principle that heinous or serious offences with a significant impact on society cannot appropriately be quashed merely because the victim or parties have settled the dispute.

The Court considered that the FIR alleged that the petitioners fired at the injured with the intention of causing death, causing injuries in an incident involving firearms.

It therefore found that the allegations were not of a purely private or civil nature and that the prosecution involved an element of public interest.

Although the compromise was verified as voluntary, it did not efface the alleged offence’s seriousness or provide a sufficient basis to exercise inherent jurisdiction.

The petition was dismissed, and the interlocutory applications were disposed of; the Court also noted that the compromise petition in the cross-case had been dismissed that day.