Police Cannot Compel Citizens Or Public Servants To Help Them: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR U/S 188 IPC

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently flagged the 'unfortunate mentality' of the Police Department in the State that everybody must give preference to the work directed by the police or must help the police. 

A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh in its order said the police officers cannot make it compulsory for any citizen or public servant to help them and any refusal to help the police will not be considered as an offence in all situations. 

"It is very much unfortunate that still a mentality prevails in the Police Department that everybody should give preference to the work directed by the police or to help the police. Of course, every citizen is duty bound to help the police, but that does not mean that refusal of the same should be considered as an offence in all the situations. The Police Officers cannot make it compulsory to any citizen even the employee that they should help the Police Officers. Though there is a duty that does not mean that there is a compulsion," the bench remarked in its order passed on May 9.

The observation was made while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against 52-year-old Balasaheb Arawat, who works as an Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare Department in Dharashiv district. The FIR against Arawat, a government servant was lodged on March 28, 2024 under IPC sections 187 (Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance) and 188 (Disobedience to an order promulgated by a public servant) for not responding to the letter written by the City Police, Dharashiv to send employees under him as 'panch witnesses' in various criminal investigations. 

The bench noted that the petitioner had responded to the concerned officers in City Police that due to staff crunch, he could not send anyone to act as panch witnesses. Panch witnesses are independent witnesses who sign a document referred to as a panchnama. 

"The petitioner has stated that due to scarcity of employees it will not be possible to send the employees working under him to act as panch in various matters. Here, refusal is different than inability due to genuine reason. Here, the letter which was given by the present applicant clearly demonstrates his inability for a genuine reason. It is not the case in FIR that the reason that was given in the letter was found to be false or incorrect. Therefore, the basic ingredient of section 187 of the IPC was not at all attracted," the bench opined. 

The bench noted from the FIR that the letter written by the City Police Officers were in a way of 'threatening' the petitioner that if he fails to send employees from his team as panch witnesses, then it will be taken as an offence under sections 187 and 188.

"Panchas are not to be procured by giving threats. It is a voluntary act. When the applicant as the head of the said Department was putting his difficulty in writing, it cannot be taken as a wilful disobedience of any order. It would be unjust to ask the applicant to face the trial and, therefore, this is a fit case where we should exercise our powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)," the bench said.

With these observations, the judges, quashed the FIR lodged against Arawat.

Case Title: Balasaheb Gurushantappa Arawat vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 2109 of 2024)

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Ajinkya Reddy appeared for the Petitioner. 

Counsel for State: Additional Public Prosecutor AR Kale 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 194

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment