Serious firearm-based attempt-to-murder charges should not be quashed solely on compromise.

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the proceedings in S.T. No. 193/2026 pending before the 23rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, arising from Crime No. 42/2026 registered at Police Station Gola Ka Mandir, Gwalior, for offences under Sections 296(b), 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

According to the prosecution, on 5 February 2026, the complainant, a liquor-shop salesman, was allegedly abused by four persons, one of whom fired three to four rounds at him. One bullet struck his right shoulder, while the others missed. The assailants allegedly thereafter pelted stones at him and fled. The complainant initially could not identify the assailants.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioners and respondent No. 2/complainant filed compromise applications supported by affidavits. The Principal Registrar verified the parties, signatures and voluntariness of the compromise and reported that it was entered into without threat, inducement or coercion.

The petitioners and complainant supported quashing, while the State opposed the petition.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the complainant?

2. Whether the allegations involving an alleged firearm attack, an injury to the complainant and an offence under Section 109(1) of the BNS could be quashed merely because the parties had settled the dispute?

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, which holds that heinous or serious offences, including attempt to murder, should not ordinarily be quashed solely on the basis of compromise; the Court must consider the nature of the offence, the supporting evidence and the broader societal interest.

The Court also relied on Vijay Kumar Kela & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2026 INSC 588, which reiterates that offences involving mental depravity, serious bodily harm or a substantial impact on society cannot ordinarily be terminated merely because the victim has settled the matter, since public interest in prosecuting serious crimes overrides the private settlement.

The Court further considered the allegations under Sections 296(b), 109(1) and 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

Although the compromise was found to be voluntary and duly verified, the Court held that the allegations were not predominantly private or civil in character.

The prosecution alleged that the accused used a pistol, fired several rounds at the complainant with an apparent intention to kill him, caused a firearm injury to his shoulder and subsequently pelted stones at him.

These circumstances attracted Section 109(1) of the BNS, relating to attempt to commit murder, along with offences under the Arms Act.

Applying Laxmi Narayan and Vijay Kumar Kela, the Court held that the use of a firearm and the resulting threat to bodily safety made the case sufficiently serious to implicate public interest.

The Court clarified that it was not determining the truth of the allegations or the petitioners’ guilt—matters reserved for trial—but only assessing whether quashing on compromise would advance the interests of justice.

It held that the seriousness of the alleged firearm assault and the offence under Section 109(1) of the BNS outweighed the parties’ private settlement.

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