The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a compromise arrived at between parties after the accused allegedly fired shots at the injured victim with the intention of causing death cannot, by itself, be a ground to quash the FIR. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 450]Emphasizing that the compromise 'does not efface the seriousness of the alleged offence or the element of public interest involved in...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a compromise arrived at between parties after the accused allegedly fired shots at the injured victim with the intention of causing death cannot, by itself, be a ground to quash the FIR. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 450]
Emphasizing that the compromise 'does not efface the seriousness of the alleged offence or the element of public interest involved in its prosecution', the bench of Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta observed:
"In the present case, the prosecution allegations, at this stage, disclose that the petitioners allegedly used a firearm and fired shots at the injured with the intention of causing death. The nature and manner of the alleged occurrence, therefore, cannot be said to have an overwhelmingly civil or private character. The fact that the injured/complainant has entered into a compromise subsequent to the occurrence does not efface the seriousness of the alleged offence or the element of public interest involved in its prosecution".
A petition was filed by the accused seeking quashing of the FIR registered for attempt to commit culpable homicide (Section 308) and obscenity in public places (Section 294) of the IPC.
Per the prosecution, on September 15, 2023, the complainant, while working as a labourer along with her husband, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law, saw the accused men standing on opposite sides of the road and started abusing each other in filthy language and firing shots.
After some time, four more men arrived at the spot and started firing. During the firing, one bullet pierced the complainant's saree and hit her below the navel, causing injury and bleeding.
The Principal Registrar of the Court informed that the parties appeared to have reached a compromise and have filed an application for the same.
The counsel for the petitioners submitted that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and they want to settle the dispute. Therefore, they prayed for quashing of the FIR.
The court noted that the allegations in the FIR are not of purely private or civil nature, but involve the commission of a serious offence involving the use of a firearm and attempt upon life of the injured. The bench highlighted,
"It is true that the parties have entered into a compromise and the complainant has expressed his willingness to settle the dispute. However, the mere fact that the parties have subsequently arrived at a compromise cannot, by itself, be a ground for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS where the allegations disclose a serious offence having an impact on society at large".
Referring to the case of Vijay Kumar Kela v CBI, the court reiterated that while exercising inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement, the court must give due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. It was further emphasized, "heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences which have a serious impact upon society cannot appropriately be quashed merely because the victim or the parties have settled the dispute".
Thus, the bench held that the compromise between parties is not a sufficient ground for exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS to quash the FIR and consequently the proceedings. Thus, the petition was dismissed.
For Petitioners: Advocate Arvind Kumar Dwived
For State: Public Prosecutor Dinesh Savita
For Complainant: Advocate Harshat Ali