Mumbai: Emphasising that cooperation with the police cannot be enforced through threats or coercion, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court quashed an FIR against an Assistant Commissioner of Social Welfare, Dharashiv, who had declined to send staff as panch witnesses citing manpower shortage.
A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh observed, “Police officers cannot make it compulsory for any citizen—even a government employee—to help them. Though there is a duty, that does not mean there is a compulsion.”
The HC was hearing a petition filed by Balasaheb Arawat, 52, seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him on March 28, 2024 under Sections 187 (Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance) and 188 (disobedience to a lawful order from a public servant) of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was filed on a complaint by API Dinesh Jadhav.
Jadhav had requested two employees from Arawat’s department to act as panch witnesses in an investigation. Arawat responded by letter dated March 26, citing continued staff shortages and noting that one employee had already been sent every Tuesday for the past three years as part of a pre-decided rotation.
The judges noted that Arawat’s written explanation showed a “genuine reason” for the refusal. “Refusal is different than inability due to genuine reason,” they said, adding that there was no evidence of willful disobedience or mala fide intent.
The court also addressed the 2015 Government Resolution that encouraged the use of government employees as panchas in serious offences, but stressed that the wording “as far as possible” made the guideline discretionary, not binding. “Panchas are not to be procured by giving threats. It is a voluntary act,” the bench stated.
Calling the FIR “not maintainable,” the court highlighted that even the District Magistrate had later intervened, asking police to refrain from filing cases against government departments over such issues. “It would be unjust to ask the applicant to face the trial,” the bench concluded while quashing the FIR.
