Compromise between public servant and accused not valid, rules HC
If a public servant has complained against a person for preventing him from discharging his duty, the said official cannot reach a compromise with the latter on his own, the Punjab and Haryana high court has ruled.punjab Updated: Dec 26, 2015 21:22 IST
If a public servant has complained against a person for preventing him from discharging his duty, the said official cannot reach a compromise with the latter on his own, the Punjab and Haryana high court has ruled.
The court said that after a public servant lodges an FIR regarding an assault on him while he was performing his official duty, he loses the locus standi to reach a compromise with the accused.
The judgment came in a matter wherein a head constable of Patiala police had reached a compromise with a man, whom he had accused of preventing him from discharging his official duty and tearing off his uniform.
The petitioners in this case, who were accused of assault and preventing the head constable from discharging his duty, had approached the court, seeking quashing of the FIR against them saying they had reached a compromise with the head constable.
“The head constable, while complaining to the police, was merely acting on behalf of the police department. He would, thus, have no authority to reach a compromise with the accused thereafter,” the court observed.
Head constable Daljit Singh of Kheri Gandian police station in Patiala district had got registered the FIR, in August this year, against Amrik Singh and a few others, claiming that when he had called them for investigation in a private complaint, they misbehaved with him, threatened to eliminate him and tore off his uniform besides obstructing him from discharging his duty.
“There can be no question of a compromise between the accused and officials of the state. For this reason the FIR was lodged by the head constable and the investigating agency registered a case. It is inexplicable how the head constable entered into a compromise on behalf of the state,” the high court said, directing the Patiala senior superintendent of police (SSP) to examine the matter whether the conduct of head constable was as per law and whether he sought permission of the competent authority before reaching the compromise.
The high court said the nature of the allegations was such that the compromise by the head constable was of no consequence. The court directed the SSP to initiate appropriate action against the head constable, if he was found in the wrong.