HC of Punjab and Haryana Rejects Plea to Quash FIR Involving Assault on Public Servant Despite Settlement: Sec 528 BNSS 2023

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, led by Justice Sumeet Goel, has delivered a firm ruling regarding the limits of private settlements in criminal law. The Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash an FIR, emphasizing that criminal acts committed against public servants while on duty cannot be easily extinguished through a private compromise, particularly when such settlements lack official government authorization.

Case Background

The petition was filed by Inderjeet Suhag and Akshay Suhag, who sought the quashing of an FIR registered at Police Station Beri, Jhajjar. The FIR, dated August 22, 2024, alleged that the petitioners had assaulted three electricity department employees—Rakesh (Lineman), Sunil (Assistant Lineman), and Mohit (Assistant Lineman)—while they were on night duty.

According to the complaint, the altercation began when the employees were denied entry to their official complaint centre located in a Dharamshala. The petitioners were accused of physical assault, criminal intimidation, and damaging government property. Following the registration of the case, the petitioners reached a settlement with the victims on August 7, 2025, leading to the current petition for quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023.

Arguments Presented

Counsel for the petitioners argued that the incident stemmed from a misunderstanding and that the parties had resolved the dispute amicably to ensure future harmony. They asserted that the complainants no longer wished to pursue the case and that continuing the trial would serve no useful purpose.

Conversely, the State of Haryana strongly opposed the petition. The State counsel contended that the offences involved were not purely private in nature. Because the victims were public servants acting in the line of duty, the case impacted public interest. The State argued that the Court should exercise its power to quash proceedings sparingly and cautiously, maintaining that assault on state officials cannot be unilaterally "forgiven" by the targets of the assault without following proper administrative protocols.

Key Judicial Observations

Justice Sumeet Goel underscored that the legal status of a public servant on duty makes the case a "tripartite matter" rather than a simple bilateral dispute.

> "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 Court highlighted the dangerous precedent that could arise from private settlements of public offences:

> "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... 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."

Justice Goel further clarified the distinction between private and public disputes, stating:

> "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's Decision

Rejecting the petition, the Court ordered that the FIR proceedings continue in accordance with the law. Significantly, the judge directed the Administrative Secretary of the relevant department to investigate why the public servants involved entered into a compromise without administrative approval. The Administrative Secretary is now mandated to file a compliance report within three months, and failing to secure such permission may result in departmental proceedings against the public servants involved.

This judgment serves as a vital reminder that the machinery of the state is not a private tool to be bartered away through personal settlements when government officials are the targets of illegal acts.