Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea To Quash FIR Over Assault On Electricity Staff; Says Offence Against “Public Servant On Duty” Not A Private Dispute
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered against two accused for allegedly assaulting government electricity employees on duty, obstructing official work, and damaging government property at Beri, Jhajjar. The Court held that the alleged offences were committed against public servants during the discharge of official duties and, therefore, could not be treated as a private dispute fit for quashing on the basis of a compromise. It further directed the Administrative Secretary of the concerned department to examine the conduct of the complainant officials who entered into the compromise without requisite administrative approval and to take appropriate action under applicable rules.
The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of an FIR registered at Police Station Beri, Jhajjar, under Sections 121(1), 132, 221 and 324(6) of the BNSS. The FIR was lodged after three government electricity employees—a Lineman and two Assistant Linemen—were allegedly assaulted while on night duty at the complaint centre situated in Jat Dharamshala, Beri.
On 21 August 2024, at around 11:40 P.M., the employees returned from attending a complaint and were stopped from entering the Dharamshala by villagers who claimed to have booked the premises for personal use. The employees explained that it was an official complaint centre. During the ensuing altercation, the Sarpanch of Bishan village and his sons allegedly abused, threatened and assaulted the employees, damaged a government phone, and obstructed official work.
The investigation revealed offences under the cited sections of BNSS, and the accused were arrested. Later, the accused and the complainants executed a compromise deed dated 07 August 2025, in which the complainants declared that they had mistakenly identified the accused and no longer wished to pursue the case. The petitioners then sought quashing of the FIR and related proceedings based on this settlement.
The State opposed the plea, asserting that the offences were not private in nature, as they concerned assault and obstruction of government employees on duty. The complainants confirmed before the Magistrate that the compromise had been voluntarily entered into. The Court considered the pleadings, the compromise documents, and Section 528 of BNSS, which empowers the High Court to pass orders to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice
.
The Court observed that “the issue that arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether the impugned FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed on the basis of compromise/settlement having been arrived at between the rival private parties.” It stated that the question was “whether an FIR (as also proceedings emanating therefrom) can be quashed on the basis of compromise/settlement between the rival parties wherein the FIR-complainant/victim/aggrieved person is a public servant.”
The Court recorded that Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, “shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” It stated that the inherent powers of the High Court are “intrinsic to the High Court, its very life-blood, its very essence, its immanent attribute.”
The Court noted that the purpose of these powers is “to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.” It referred to earlier decisions holding that the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings “has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.”
Citing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court recorded that “heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute.” It further stated that “any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to offences under special statutes or committed by public servants while working in that capacity cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings.”
The Court observed that “a criminal offence against a public servant while on duty is in stark contrast to an offence against a private individual.” It held that “when a person commits an offence against a public servant - on duty, it becomes a tripartite matter.” The Court stated that “a public servant works not just as a representative but epitomises the State while on duty.”
The Court recorded that “a public servant once having got registered an FIR 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.” It further stated 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.”
Summarising its conclusions, the Court observed that “a petition seeking quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise involving a public servant may be granted wherein the dispute between the parties is primarily private/individual in nature. In other words, where the offence is against a public servant, inherently in discharge of his/her official duty, such compromise quashing petition deserves to be rejected.” It further recorded that “the litmus test, as to whether the dispute/offence(s) is of private/individual capacity or of public/government function would essentially depend upon the analysis of factual milieu of a particular case.”
The Court directed: “The petition; seeking quashing of FIR No.234 dated 22.08.2024 registered under Sections 121(1), 132, 221, 324(6) of BNS at Police Station Beri, Jhajjar, Haryana, as also the proceedings subsequent thereto, on the basis of a compromise deed(s) dated 07.08.2025 (Annexures P-2, P-4 and P-6); is dismissed.”
“The Administrative Secretary of the Department [wherein the FIR-complainant-victim(s) were serving at the time of alleged commission of offence(s)] is directed to look into the matter regarding settlement/compromise entered into by them sans requisite administrative approval/permission & take appropriate action(s) in accordance with the extant rules.”
“Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on the merits of the case and the trial Court/police shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced with this order.”
“No disposition as to costs, for the nonce. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”
“The concerned Administrative Secretary, Government of Haryana is mandated to file a compliance affidavit, in terms of directions made hereinabove, within three months from today with the Registrar General of this Court failure wherein may invite punitive consequences (as per law) for the officer concerned as also other concerned functionaries.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Abhishek Goel, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG Haryana; Mr. Abhimanu Jangra,
Case Title: Inderjeet Suhag and another v. State of Haryana and others
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:140414
Case Number: CRM-M-46800-2025
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel
