Whether public servant can compound the case if assault is committed on him while he was acting in official capacity?
In my considered view, FIR in question cannot be quashed
on the basis of compromise. Nature of allegations show that petitioners
assaulted the complainant, who was posted as Head Constable in the
police station itself and had torn his uniform when he was conducting
investigation on the direction of the Station House Officer pursuant to a
complaint lodged against them. They also threatened to kill the
investigating officer as well as complainant. Instant dispute is not
personal in nature. Petitioners committed an offence against the State.
There can be no question of compromise between accused and officials of
the State. For this reason, FIR was lodged by the Head Constable and the
investigating agency registered a case. It is inexplicable how Head
Constable entered into a compromise on behalf of the State. There is
nothing on record to show that he was authorised by the police
department to enter into a compromise with the petitioners. Even
otherwise, such a compromise would be of no avail in view of nature of
allegations. The Head Constable while making complaint to the police
was merely acting on behalf of the police department. He would, thus,
have no authority to enter into compromise with the accused thereafter.
In my considered view after public servant lodges an FIR regarding the
assault raised upon him while he was performing his official duty, he
loses the locus standi to enter into compromise with the accused.
Judgment in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra) is not attracted to cases of
this nature. Under the circumstances, there is no ground for quashing of
FIR. The petition is hereby dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-37551-2015 (O&M)
Date of decision: December 23, 2015
Amrik Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
on the basis of compromise. Nature of allegations show that petitioners
assaulted the complainant, who was posted as Head Constable in the
police station itself and had torn his uniform when he was conducting
investigation on the direction of the Station House Officer pursuant to a
complaint lodged against them. They also threatened to kill the
investigating officer as well as complainant. Instant dispute is not
personal in nature. Petitioners committed an offence against the State.
There can be no question of compromise between accused and officials of
the State. For this reason, FIR was lodged by the Head Constable and the
investigating agency registered a case. It is inexplicable how Head
Constable entered into a compromise on behalf of the State. There is
nothing on record to show that he was authorised by the police
department to enter into a compromise with the petitioners. Even
otherwise, such a compromise would be of no avail in view of nature of
allegations. The Head Constable while making complaint to the police
was merely acting on behalf of the police department. He would, thus,
have no authority to enter into compromise with the accused thereafter.
In my considered view after public servant lodges an FIR regarding the
assault raised upon him while he was performing his official duty, he
loses the locus standi to enter into compromise with the accused.
Judgment in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra) is not attracted to cases of
this nature. Under the circumstances, there is no ground for quashing of
FIR. The petition is hereby dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-37551-2015 (O&M)
Date of decision: December 23, 2015
Amrik Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
https://www.lawweb.in/2015/12/whether-public-servant-can-compound.html
