When Alleged Offence Was Against Public Servant Acting In Official Capacity, FIR Cannot Be Quashed On Compromise: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

While dismissing the plea for quashing FIR filed by the accused in view of compromise with the complainant-Public Servant, the Court directed the Administrative Secretary of the Department [wherein the FIR-complainant-victims were serving at the time of alleged commission of offence(s)] to look into the matter regarding settlement entered into by them sans requisite administrative permission & take appropriate action.

Justice Sumeet Goel said, "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 his official duties, than such an FIR (as also the proceedings emanating therefrom) ought not to be quashed on the basis of compromise."

The Court added that to determine as to, "whether offence(s) in question pertain to an individual/private in his capacity or official capacity, the Court is essentially required to look into entire factual milieu of the particular case in hand. No exhaustive set of guideline(s) to govern, the exercise of this aspect by the High Court, can possibly be laid down, however illecebrous this aspect may be."

According to the complaint, linemen Rakesh, Sunil, and Mohit were performing their duties at the complaint centre situated in Jat Dharamshala, Beri, when they were obstructed by local villagers who claimed the premises had been booked for their private use. Upon being informed, Sarpanch Inderjeet Suhag and his sons allegedly arrived at the spot, 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 the FIR was registered for offences including obstructing public servants in discharge of duty, causing hurt, and criminal intimidation.

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

However, opposing the plea, the State submitted that the allegations were serious in nature and involved assault on government employees while on duty, thus implicating public interest. It was argued that such offences could not be quashed merely on the basis of compromise.

After examining the records and submissions, 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 catena of cases 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 underscored that while the High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (analogous to Section 482 Cr.P.C.), such powers must be exercised with caution and primarily in cases involving private or personal disputes.

Emphasizing that offences against public servants on duty are not private in nature, the Court 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 works not just as a representative but epitomises the State while on - duty. His official status is not contingent but indispensable, nonelective and sine qua non. The State is also responsible for fostering public order and any official functioning on behalf of the State is also an instrument of maintaing this order.”

Public Servant Can't Elect To Compromise Case In Govt. Official Capacity 

The Court further noted that a public servant cannot independently settle a criminal case relating to acts done in his official capacity without prior permission from the competent administrative authority. Any compromise entered into without such approval, the Court held, may invite departmental action against the concerned public servant.

"A public servant, once having got registered an FIR etc. in his capacity of a government official, cannot elect to settle a dispute with an individual, on his own without requisite permission from the concerned Government authority, because the causative factors also involve infringement of State's duty and rights," it added.

Must Seek Permission From Department To Settle Dispute, Otherwise Out To Be Saddled With Punishment 

The Court further added that, "Such public servant must seek the permission of concerned competent administrative authority to settle a dispute/offence arising out of a situation when he was on duty. This permission is needed to satisfy, inter alia, that the State concurs with such settlement."

If such a public servant seeks and takes steps to settle such a dispute without the permission of the concerned competent administrative authority, then such a public servant ought to be saddled with punitive measure(s) as such official/public status cannot be allowed to be treated as mere tokenism and be diluted, it further said.

Holding that the offences alleged in the present case were committed against government employees during the course of their official duties, the Court dismissed the petition for quashing the FIR.

Mr. Abhishek Goel, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Abhimanu Jangra, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

Title: Inderjeet Suhag and another v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 429

Click here to read order