Offence against public servant on duty not private dispute; compromise sans govt nod to invite action: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a criminal case registered for offences against a public servant while performing official duties cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the parties.

The court clarified that the offence ceased to be a private dispute and partook the character of an offence against the State itself, when a public servant was assaulted, obstructed, or intimidated in discharge of official work. The bench also made it clear that that a public servant settling an official-duty offence without approval would make himself liable for punitive action.

Justice Sumeet Goel ruled that quashing on the basis of settlement could be granted only where the dispute was primarily private or individual in nature, but not when the act complained of was committed against a public servant in the course of official duty.

Public duty cannot be compromised privately

The ruling came in a case involving serious allegations of assault on government employees while on duty, obstruction of official work, criminal intimidation, and damage to government property. Justice Goel observed that a public servant acted as an extension of the State machinery, and any offence committed against him while on duty “is in stark contrast to a private dispute between individuals”. Such an offence “becomes a tripartite matter”, involving not merely the complainant and the accused but the State itself, which has an inherent interest in maintaining public order.

“A public servant works not just as a representative, but epitomises the State while on duty. His official status is not contingent, but indispensable, non-elective and sine qua non,” Justice Goel asserted. The court held that the State’s rights and duties were equally infringed when its officer was assaulted, threatened, or obstructed in the discharge of lawful functions.

Permission from competent authority a must

Justice Goel further clarified that a compromise sought to be entered into by a public servant regarding an offence arising out of acts done in discharge of official duty would be invalid unless approved by the competent government or administrative authority.

Justice Goel observed that “a public servant, once having got registered an FIR in his capacity as a government official, cannot elect to settle a dispute with an individual on his own without requisite permission from the government authority concerned”. The court made it clear that any attempt by such a public servant to privately settle a case would invite departmental proceedings or other punitive measures.

“If a public servant seeks and takes steps to settle such a dispute without the permission of the competent administrative authority, he ought to be saddled with punitive measures,” Justice Goel ruled, adding that official status cannot be allowed to “be treated as mere tokenism and be diluted”.

Litmus test for determining private versus public character

Justice Goel held that the nature of a dispute — whether private or public — would depend on the factual milieu of each case. The court refused to lay down fixed guidelines, noting that each case had its own facts and that any decision must be a reasoned order based on justice, fairness, and equity.

“The litmus test as to whether the dispute/offence is of private or public character would essentially depend upon the analysis of factual milieu of a particular case,” Justice Goel asserted, while cautioning against attempts to lay down rigid formulae. “Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact, may make a sea of difference between conclusions of two cases,” the bench observed.

Earlier precedent distinguished

Justice Goel also referred to a division bench ruling, where the High Court held that quashing of FIRs could be allowed on compromise even if the complainant was a public servant, provided the dispute was essentially private in nature. Justice Goel clarified that such relaxation applied only when the public servant was involved not in his official capacity but as a private individual.

“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, then such an FIR as also the proceedings emanating therefrom ought not to be quashed on the basis of compromise.”

Conclusion

Justice Goel dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR registered at the Beri police station in Jhajjar after holding that the matter was not fit for quashing based on a compromise. The court also directed the Administrative Secretary of the department concerned — where the complainant public servants were posted — to examine how the compromise was entered into without requisite government approval and to take appropriate action under the rules. Haryana Administrative Secretary was also directed to file a compliance affidavit within three months before the Registrar-General. The bench warned that failure to do so could invite punitive consequences.