Mandeep Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 14911 P&H

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH
299
                                             CRM-M-8034-2022 (O&M)
                                             Date of Decision: 22.11.2022
MANDEEP SINGH AND ORS
                                                                  ... Petitioners
                                    Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
                                                                ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:      Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate
              for the petitioners.

              Mr. Pankaj Khullar, AAG Punjab.

              Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate
              for respondent No.2.

                    ****

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral)

Through this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR

No.55 dated 25.05.2018, registered under Sections 325 (deleted), 34 and

324 IPC (added later on) and Section 146 of Railway Act, 1989, at Police

Station GRP Sirhind, District Government Rly Police, along with all the

consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise

dated 02.09.2019 (Annexure P-2).

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the

petitioners relies upon the judgment/order passed by a Division Bench of

this Court in Vinod @ Boda and others vs State of Haryana and another,

2017 (1) RCR (Criminal) 571 and a Coordinate Bench in CRM-M-5770-

2013 titled Jaswant Singh vs State of Punjab and another, decided on

22.04.2013.

                                    1 of 3

 299          CRM-M-8034-2022 (O&M)                                  -2-

Reply by way of an affidavit dated 21.06.2022 of the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, GRP Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib, filed on

behalf of the respondent-State, in the Registry, is taken on record.

At this stage, learned State counsel on the instructions from

the concerned Investigating Officer submits that the FIR in question was

registered by the complainant being a public servant and during the time

when he was on his official duty and thus, the FIR cannot be quashed on

the basis of the compromise without prior approval of the Secretary of

the concerned Government Department.

In support of his contentions, the learned State counsel relies

upon the judgment dated 23.12.2015 passed by a Coordinate Bench of

this Court in CRM-M-37551 of 2015 titled as Amrik Singh and others vs

State of Punjab and another.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Amrik Singh's case

(supra) has held as under:-

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

2 of 3

299 CRM-M-8034-2022 (O&M) -3-

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.

There is no counter on behalf of the learned counsel for the

petitioners with regard to the aforesaid factual position.

In view of the above and the law laid down by a Coordinate

Bench of this Court, FIR in question cannot be quashed on the basis of

the compromise.

Dismissed.

22.11.2022                                   (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
Aman Jain                                            JUDGE
             Whether speaking/reasoned         :         Yes/No
             Whether reportable                :         Yes/No




                                    3 of 3