'Silence Of Grave Can't Be Substituted By Signature Of Heirs': MP High Court Refuses To Quash Culpable Homicide Case On Compromise

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash an FIR arising out of the death of a bystander who was allegedly hit by a bullet during an unauthorised target shooting practice, holding that a compromise with the deceased's legal heirs cannot be a ground to quash proceedings for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and allied offences, which are crimes against society. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 313]Emphasizing that the "silence of the grave cannot be substituted by signatures of heirs", the bench of Justice Gajendra Singh held,"offences of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 105 of the BNS, 2023 coupled with the offence under section 238 of the BNS, 2023 and section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 falls within the category of henious and serious offences of mental depravity. These offences are not private in nature. These offences have serious impact on the society. "Silence of grave" cannot be substituted by signature of heirs. Hence, First Information Report of this case as well as subsequent proceedings cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise".The Court further clarified that in cases involving grave, serious and non-compoundable offences, an informant has only the right to be heard to ensure that justice is done through conviction and punishment of the offender. Such a person has no right in law to withdraw a complaint relating to offences that have a serious societal impact.A petition was filed seeking quashment of an FIR against the petitioner for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 105) and for providing false information or causing disappearance of evidence to secure the accused (Section 238) of BNS. Per the facts, the victim was brought into M.Y. hospital with gunshot injuries. The hospital was told that the deceased had sustained the gunshot injury while cleaning a gun. An enquiry was conducted, which disclosed that the applicants were engaged in target-practice shooting using a 0.32-bore pistol, a fact confirmed by the CCTV footage. It was claimed that while the applicants were carrying out their practice, a bullet travelled through the grill of the plastic sheet and struck the deceased. The deceased was filling water from the gate of JJ Farms where the target shooting practise was ongoing. They carried the deceased to the hospital and were told that he sustained injuries while cleaning the gun. The present petition was filed on the ground that the material collected through the investigation, prima facie, does not disclose the commission of the alleged offence. The petitioner argued that the deceased was taken to the hospital by his son and thereafter the family filed a false oral complaint against the applicant and his entire family. The petitioner argued that there is no evidence to show that the action that caused the deceased's death was done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury which is likely to cause death. The applicants argued that the fact that applicants had knowledge that a person was standing at mark J and filing water does not appear to be a normally possible situation.In the present case, the court noted that the prosecution has not initiated the case with malafide intentions but based on material disclosing that the applicants were practising without getting prior licence under Rule 38 of the Arms Rules, 2016 and without observing the required safety measures. The bench emphasized, "Practicing Target shooting without obtaining requisite permission and without adhering to necessary safety measures is an act that affects society at large. Such an offence cannot be treated as one of a purely private nature, particularly where the victim has lost his life". The court noted that the applicants' contention that, based on the spot map, the knowledge that a person was standing at Mark J and filling water does not appear to be a normally possible situation, can be determined only during the evidence in Trial. The bench further noted that the analysis of the individual role of applicants is not permissible while considering the prayer for quashment of FIR and should be examined in the trial. Considering the issue that the case should be quashed based on the compromise entered into between the applicant and the deceased's legal heirs, the court noted that the offences of Section 105 BNS and Section 30 of the Arms Act are non-compoundable in nature. Further, relying on Supreme Court judgments in the cases of Ramgopal v State of Madhya Pradesh and Dakshaben v State of Gujarat, the court held that compromise in the case of a grave and serious non-compoundable offence is not approved.Accordingly, the case was dismissed. Case Title: Vivek v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-8946-2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 313For Applicant: Advocate Yogesh Kumar Gupta For State: Government Advocate Romil Verma For Complainant: Senior Advocate Vivek Singh with Advocate Vipin ParmarClick here to read/download the Order

'Silence Of Grave Can't Be Substituted By Signature Of Heirs': MP High Court Refuses To Quash Culpable Homicide Case On Compromise

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

'Silence Of Grave Can't Be Substituted By Signature Of Heirs': MP High Court Refuses To Quash Culpable Homicide Case On Compromise

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers