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

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashing of FIR Crime No. 64/2013 registered at Police Station Hazira, District Gwalior, for offences under Sections 307, 323 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, along with consequential proceedings, on the basis of a compromise.

The prosecution alleged that, following an earlier dispute, the accused persons—including Ajit Singh Tomar and Bharat Singh Tomar—approached the complainant while armed with firearms and fired at him and another person with the intention to kill them.

The complainants subsequently entered into a compromise with the petitioners, supported by affidavits.

The Principal Registrar verified the identities, signatures, contents, and voluntariness of the compromise, finding no threat, inducement, or coercion.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings for alleged offences involving an attempt to murder and the use of firearms, merely because the parties have entered into a compromise?

Whether the alleged conduct was predominantly private or civil in nature so as to justify quashing on the basis of settlement?

The Court applied Section 528 of the BNSS, which preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, while recognising that such jurisdiction must be exercised cautiously in cases involving serious and non-compoundable offences.

Relying on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Court reiterated that heinous or serious offences, including attempt to murder, should not ordinarily be quashed merely because the parties have settled; the Court must consider the nature of the offence, the manner of occurrence, and the evidentiary circumstances supporting the Section 307 allegation.

The Court further relied on Vijay Kumar Kela & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2026 INSC 588, which reaffirmed that offences involving mental depravity or having a serious impact on society cannot ordinarily be quashed solely on the basis of compromise, because public interest in prosecuting serious crimes overrides the parties’ private settlement.

Although the compromise was found to be voluntary and duly verified, the Court held that the allegations disclosed more than a private or civil dispute.

The accused were alleged to have used firearms and fired shots at the complainant with the intention of causing his death, resulting in an injury.

Applying the principles in Laxmi Narayan and Vijay Kumar Kela, the Court reasoned that the seriousness of the alleged offence, the use of firearms, the asserted intention to kill, and the consequent element of public interest could not be neutralised by a subsequent compromise.

The complainant’s willingness to settle did not efface the alleged criminality or justify exercise of the inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed in respect of petitioners Ajit Singh Tomar and Bharat Singh Tomar, and I.A. Nos. 16108/2026 and 16109/2026 were disposed of.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the present petition and would not prejudice either party before the Trial Court.