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

The petitioners sought to quash FIR Crime No. 24/2025, registered at Police Station Agra, District Sheopur, for offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 115(2) and 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and consequential proceedings, relying on a compromise with the complainant and other respondents

The FIR alleged that, during a dispute at an agricultural field, the accused assaulted the complainant and his family members and that one accused fired a country-made firearm, injuring Sharda

The parties filed compromise applications, which the Principal Registrar verified as voluntary and free from threat, inducement or coercion

The complainant supported quashing; the State opposed it

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings on the basis of compromise where the allegations include a firearm assault and an offence under Section 109 BNS

2. Whether a voluntary settlement between the parties is sufficient to warrant quashing when the alleged offence is serious and implicates public interest

Section 528 of the BNSS confers inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings, but that power is not to be exercised merely because the parties have settled where the allegations disclose a serious offence with an impact on society

Relying on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Court stated that serious or heinous offences, including attempt to murder, should not ordinarily be quashed solely on the basis of settlement; the Court must examine whether the allegation is supported by the evidence and circumstances, a principle the judgment applied to Section 109 BNS

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 merely because the victim or parties have settled

The Court accepted that the compromise was voluntary, but considered the allegations to involve the use of a firearm and an alleged attempt to cause death

Applying the principles in Laxmi Narayan and Vijay Kumar Kela, it held that the occurrence did not have an overwhelmingly private or civil character and that the subsequent settlement did not remove either the alleged offence’s seriousness or the public interest in prosecution

The compromise therefore did not justify exercising the inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS

The petition was dismissed, and I.A. Nos. 10727/2026 and 10728/2026 were disposed of; the Court clarified that its observations would not prejudice either party before the Trial Court