Zero Tolerance Policy Towards Obstruction Of Public Servants On Duty
While displaying zero tolerance policy towards those who obstruct public servants on duty and assault them, we see that the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Inderjeet Suhag and Another v. State of Haryana and Others in CRM-M-46800-2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:PHHC:140414 that was pronounced recently on 09.10.2025 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that an FIR alleging obstruction of public servants and assault on government employees during duty cannot be quashed based on a private compromise.
To put it differently, the Court made it indubitably clear that where the FIR-complainant is a public servant and the act alleged was committed in the discharge of official duties, the offence cannot be treated as a private dispute capable of compromise-quashing. While striking the right chord, the Court also underscored that offences against public servants in the discharge of public duties affect public order and cannot be treated as mere personal disputes. Absolutely right!
Case Background And Procedural Details
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sumeet Goel of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The petition in hand has been preferred by the accused – petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing of FIR No.234 dated 22.08.2024 (hereinafter to be referred as the impugned FIR) 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 dated 07.08.2025 (Annexures P-2, P-4 and P-6) appended with the present petition.”
Background: Gravamen Of The Impugned FIR
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the gravamen of the impugned FIR stating that, “The gravamen of the impugned FIR is that on 21.08.2024, employees namely Rakesh (Lineman), Sunil (Assistant Lineman) (respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein) were on night duty at the complaint centre, Beri, when around 11.40 P.M. they returned from a complaint visit to Jat Dharamshala, Beri.
When they reached the complaint centre, which is located in the Dharamshala, some people present there stopped them from entering by saying that they had booked the Dharamshala for their own use. The employees explained that it was the official complaint center and they were on night duty. During this argument, the villagers informed the Sarpanch of Bishan village namely Indrajit Suhag who along with his sons came to the spot.
Without any discussion, they started abusing, threatening and physically assaulting the employees. They also threatened to kill them and get them fired from their jobs. When the employees tried to contact the Junior Engineer (JE) namely Anil on the government phone, Sarpanch namely Indrajit Suhag threw the phone away by saying that he did not know any JE. This incident created fear amongst the employees making it unsafe for them to perform night duty at the complaint Centre.
In view of this, a request was made to register an FIR against Sarpanch Indrajit Suhag and his sons for obstructing government work; issuing death threats and damaging a government phone. Furthermore, employee namely Rakesh and Mohit were injured during the course of the aforesaid occurrence. After investigation, it was found that offences under Sections 132, 221, 324, 6 of BNS and other relevant law had been committed. Accordingly, the instant case was registered. On 24.08.2024, based on the evidence, accused Inderjeet Suhag and Akshay Suhag (petitioners herein) were arrested and their statements were recorded. Based on these set of allegations, the impugned FIR was got registered.”
Issue For Consideration On Quashing The FIR
As we see, the Bench while dwelling on the prime issue observes in para 7 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.
The seminal legal issue that arises for rumination is as to 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.”
Emerging Legal Postulates On Compromise Involving Public Servants
Quite significantly, it would be instructive to note that the Bench notes in para 13 that, “As a sequitur of the above rumination, the following postulates emerge:
-
I. A petition seeking quashing of FIR (as also a proceedings emanating therefrom) on the basis of compromise involving a public servant as FIR/complainant/victim 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.
-
II. In case a public servant endeavours to settle/compromise a criminal offence, essentially involving discharge of his/her official duty and not being in his/her private/individual capacity & such settlement/compromise is sans the approval of competent government/administrative authority, appropriate action(s) including, but not limited to departmental proceedings, ought to be undertaken against such public servant.
-
III. (i) 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 receiving consideration at the hands of the Court.
(ii) No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid-down for exercise of aforesaid judicial discretion by a Court as every case has its own unique factual conspectus. There is no gainsaying that an order passed by the Court, while exercising such discretion, must be a speaking order clearly giving out reasons therein & must be in consonance with the basic canons of Justice, good conscience and equity.”
Quashing Of FIR Based On Compromise
Bench Analysis And Cornerstone Of The Judgment
Most significantly, the Bench after doing an analysis of the facts of the case then encapsulates in para 14 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “The petition in hand has been filed for quashing of the impugned FIR as also the proceeding emanating therefrom on the basis of compromise deed(s) dated 07.08.2025 (Annexures P-2, P-4 and P-6). From the factual milieu of the case in hand, it cannot be said that the offence(s) alleged to have been committed is in the nature of a private dispute between the parties or the dispute(s) between the accused side and the FIR-complainant/victim(s) partake the colour of an individual dispute. The petitioners are alleged to have committed offence(s) against government official(s) during the discharge of their official duty. Ergo, the petition in hand ought not to be granted and deserves rejection.
Absence Of Administrative Approval
Further, the FIR-complainant and the victim(s), though have earlier said that the offence(s) have been committed by the accused – side during the course of their performing official duty, but nothing has been brought to the fore to indicate that before entering into compromise/settlement any approval was taken by them from the concerned competent authority(s). It thus appears that the concerned public servant(s) in present case have chosen to settle a criminal case, pertaining to discharge of their official duty, without the permission of the concerned administrative competent authority.”
Operative Directions Of The Court
Equally significant is what the Bench then hastens to add in para 15 holding that, “In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:
- 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.”
Compliance Direction To Administrative Secretary
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 16 that, “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.”
Conclusion On Non-Quashability Of FIR
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sumeet Goel of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has made it indubitably clear in this leading judgment that FIR alleging obstruction of public servants and assault on government employees during duty cannot be quashed based on a private compromise. It thus definitely merits no reiteration that all the courts must definitely abide by what the Chandigarh High Court has held in this leading case in similar such cases. No denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh
