Punjab & Haryana High Court: Offences Against Public Servants Cannot Be Quashed on Compromise

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that offences committed against public servants in the discharge of their official duties cannot be treated as mere private disputes, and in such cases, an FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties.

While dismissing the plea for quashing FIR filed by the accused, the Court directed the Administrative Secretary of the Department—where the FIR-complainant-victims were serving at the time of alleged offences—to examine any settlement entered into without requisite administrative permission and take appropriate action.

Court Observations on Public Servants and Offences

Justice Sumeet Goel observed: "It is pellucid that where the FIR-complainant/victim/aggrieved person is a public servant, but the dispute essentially partakes the colour of an offence against a public servant in discharge of official duties, then such an FIR (as also the proceedings emanating therefrom) ought not to be quashed on the basis of compromise."

The Court further added that to determine whether offences pertain to an individual/private capacity or official capacity, the Court must consider the entire factual milieu. No exhaustive set of guidelines can govern this assessment, however illecebrous this aspect may be.

Facts of the Case

According to the complaint, linemen Rakesh, Sunil, and Mohit were performing duties at the complaint centre in Jat Dharamshala, Beri, when they were obstructed by local villagers, who claimed the premises had been booked for private use.

Upon being informed, Sarpanch Inderjeet Suhag and his sons allegedly abused and assaulted the employees and threw away a government-issued phone when the staff tried to contact their superior officer.

The employees sustained injuries, and an FIR was registered for offences including obstructing public servants in discharge of duty, causing hurt, and criminal intimidation.

Petition for Quashing FIR

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR under Sections 121(1), 132, 221, 324(6) of BNS, asserting that the matter had been amicably settled through a compromise deed dated 07.08.2025, claiming the dispute arose from a misunderstanding.

Opposing the plea, the State submitted that the allegations were serious in nature, involving assault on government employees while on duty, thereby implicating public interest.

Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Court framed the core question: "Whether an FIR and criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of compromise when the complainant or victim is a public servant acting in discharge of official duty."

Referring to precedents including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, the Court emphasized that while the High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (analogous to Section 482 Cr.P.C.), such powers must be exercised primarily in private or personal disputes.

The Court further observed: "When a person commits an offence against a public servant on duty, it becomes a tripartite matter, even in the realm of compromise quashing jurisdiction. A public servant epitomises the State while on duty. The State is responsible for fostering public order, and any official functioning on behalf of the State is an instrument of maintaining this order."

Public Servant Cannot Independently Compromise

The Court held that a public servant cannot independently settle a criminal case arising from acts committed in their official capacity without prior permission from the competent administrative authority. "Any compromise entered into without such approval may invite departmental action against the concerned public servant," the Court added.

It emphasized that permission from the department is necessary to ensure that the State concurs with such settlement, and failure to seek such approval may lead to punitive measures, as a public servant’s official/public status cannot be diluted.

Case Title: Inderjeet Suhag and Another v. State of Haryana and Others