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

The petitioner sought to quash FIR Crime No. 332/2019, registered at Police Station Purani Chhawni, Gwalior, under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC, and the consequential proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS, relying on a compromise with the complainant.

The prosecution alleged that two persons stopped the complainant’s vehicle and one fired a pistol shot, injuring the complainant’s left arm; the complainant was thereafter taken to hospital.

The parties filed compromise applications supported by affidavits, and the Principal Registrar verified that the compromise was voluntary.

The State opposed quashing, while the complainant supported the petitioner’s request.

Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings for an alleged offence under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC could be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS on the basis of a compromise between the parties.

Whether the allegations of firearm use and an attempt to cause death disclosed a serious offence with a public-interest dimension that precluded quashing solely on the basis of settlement.

Section 528 of the BNSS confers inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, but compromise alone does not 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 heinous or serious offences, including attempt to murder, should not ordinarily be quashed merely because the parties have settled; the Court must consider whether the Section 307 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 the nature and gravity of the offence and the public interest in prosecuting serious crimes must be considered when deciding a settlement-based quashing request.

The allegations, as presented at this stage, were that the petitioner used a firearm and shot the injured with the intention of causing death.

The Court considered the nature and manner of the alleged occurrence inconsistent with an overwhelmingly private or civil dispute.

Although the complainant had agreed to settle, that agreement did not remove the seriousness of the alleged offence or the public interest in prosecution; accordingly, it was not a sufficient basis to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The petition was dismissed, and I.A. Nos. 17879/2026 and 17938/2026 were disposed of.

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