Sunday, 27 December 2015

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



 This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No.57 dated 06.08.2015, registered against the petitioners under
sections 353, 186, 294, 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC at Police
Station Kheri Gandian, District Patiala, on the basis of compromise.
FIR was lodged by Head Constable Daljit Singh, Police
Station Kheri Gandian, District Patiala stating that on 5.8.2015, a
complaint of Harbans Singh against petitioners and some other persons,
was received by him from the Station House Officer for conducting
investigation. Both parties were called in the police station. At about
2.30 P.M., during investigation, petitioners alongwith 3-4 other persons
got aggressive, on which he tried to pacify them, but they were bent upon
killing. When complainant tried to arrest them, petitioner Amrik Singh
caught him from color of his uniform-shirt and other accused started
abusing and threatened to kill him as well as the complainant party. TheCRM-M-37551-2015 2
petitioners tore his uniform and obstructed him in discharge of his official
duty. Pursuant to the FIR, police registered a case against the accused.
Petitioners claim that after registration of FIR, a compromise has been
effected between them and the complainant i.e. Head Constable Daljit
Singh. A copy thereof has been annexed alongwith the petition as
Annexure P-2. It has been stated therein that both parties had entered
into a compromise with intervention of common friends and respectables
and there being no ill-feeling or grudge between the parties, FIR may be
quashed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has emphatically
submitted that matter having been amicably resolved between the parties,
no dispute survives. He has placed reliance on judgment in Kulwinder
Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR ( Crl.) 1052.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also appeared and
admitted the factum of compromise.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered
the matter.
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.
Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala is directed to
examine whether conduct of respondent No.2 is in accordance with law;
whether he sought permission of the competent authority before entering
into compromise with the accused and in the absence thereof whether
appropriate departmental action needs to be initiated against respondent
No.2.
 (RAJAN GUPTA)
 JUDGE
December 23, 2015
'Rajpal'

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment