Compromise Alone Cannot Quash FIR Over Firing Incident: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has refused to quash an FIR arising out of a shootout in which a woman labourer was hit by a bullet, holding that a compromise between the parties cannot, by itself, justify the exercise of inherent powers when the allegations point to a serious offence involving a firearm.

Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta, on November 2, dismissed a petition filed by Santosh Gurjar and another accused under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (Section 482 of CrPC). The petitioners had sought quashing of FIR Crime No. 343/2023, registered at Police Station Sirol, District Gwalior, under Sections 308, 294 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and consequential proceedings.

According to the prosecution, on September 15, 2023, the complainant was working as a labourer with her family members at a plot in Pawan Sut Colony, Sirole, when accused Bharat Gurjar, Ram Lakhan Gurjar and Santosh Gurjar, standing on opposite sides of the road, allegedly began abusing each other and firing gunshots. Four other persons later arrived and also started firing.

One bullet allegedly pierced the complainant’s saree and hit her below the navel, causing bleeding. Her husband and sister-in-law took her to District Hospital, Murar, Gwalior, where her Dehati Nalishi was recorded, leading to registration of the case.

The parties filed I.A. Nos. 7872/2026 and 7873/2026, stating that they wished to settle the matter. The Principal Registrar verified the parties and their signatures and reported that the compromise appeared to be “voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion”.

Advocate Arvind Kumar Dwivedi, appearing for the petitioners, urged the Court to quash the FIR on the strength of the compromise. Advocate Harshat Ali, representing respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the complainants, supported the prayer. Public Prosecutor Dinesh Savita appeared for the State of Madhya Pradesh.

The Court, however, was not persuaded. It observed that “the dispute is not of a purely private or civil nature”. The allegations, it said, “disclose the commission of a serious offence involving use of a firearm and an attempt upon the life of the injured”.

Acknowledging the compromise, the Court held that it “cannot, by itself, be a ground” for invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS where the allegations disclose “a serious offence having an impact on society at large”.

The Court relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, in which the Supreme Court cautioned that serious offences such as attempt to murder should not ordinarily be quashed merely on the basis of settlement. This principle, the Court added, continues to apply to Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (Section 307 of IPC).

It also referred to the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Vijay Kumar Kela & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., decided on May 29, 2026, which reiterated that courts must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence while quashing proceedings on the ground of settlement. Continuing the prosecution in such cases, the Court noted, rests on the “overriding element of public interest” in bringing offenders of serious crimes to justice.

The Court observed that the nature and manner of the alleged occurrence “cannot be said to have an overwhelmingly civil or private character”. The compromise reached after the incident, it added, “does not efface the seriousness of the alleged offence or the element of public interest involved in its prosecution”.

Concluding that the compromise “does not furnish a sufficient ground” for exercising powers under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 of CrPC), the Court dismissed the petition and disposed of the connected applications.

The Court clarified that its observations are confined to deciding the present petition and shall not prejudice the case of either party before the Trial Court.

Case Title: Santosh Gurjar and Anr vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Order Date: November 2, 2026

Bench: Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta