JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J.: - This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.101 dated 15.08.2008, registered against the petitioners under section 146 of the Railways Act and 323/506 IPC at Police Station GRP, Ludhiana, on the basis of compromise. 2. FIR was lodged by Station Master, Railway Station, Ludhiana stating that on 15.8.2008 when a train was entering the platform, two persons aged 22-25 years brought their motor cycle on the platform at high speed. They were asked to stop as train was entering the platform. However, they threatened the Station Master and told him that they would deal with him. This happened in the presence of an official Ram Parshad and other staff members. Petitioners thereafter, fled from the spot leaving behind their motor cycle. Pursuant to the FIR, police registered a case and started investigating the matter. It appears, challan was presented thereafter. Petitioners claim that during the pendency of trial, a compromise has been effected between them and the Station Master, now posted at Mullanpur, District Ludhiana. A copy thereof has been annexed alongwith the petition as Annexure P-2. It has been stated therein that both parties had entered into a compromise with intervention of respectables and there being no ill-feeling or grudge between the parties, FIR may be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has emphatically submitted that matter having been amicably resolved between the parties, no dispute survived. He has placed reliance on judgment in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, [2007(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2340] : 2007(3) RCR ( Crl.) 1052. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also appeared and admitted the factum of compromise. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. 6. In my considered view, FIR in question cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. Nature of allegations show that petitioners barged to the railway platform riding a motor cycle at high speed. At that time a train was also entering the platform. Apart from violating the Railways Act, they also threatened the Station Master in presence of railway officials. 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. At that time a train was also entering the platform. Apart from violating the Railways Act, they also threatened the Station Master in presence of railway officials. 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. Section 146 of the Railways Act provides for punishment to any person who willfully obstructs or prevents any railway servant in the discharge of his duties. Action of the petitioners was such that it could prove a security risk to persons present on the railway platform. For this reason, FIR was lodged by the Station Master and the investigating agency registered a case. It is inexplicable how Station Master entered into a compromise on behalf of the railway authorities. Admittedly, said official is not even posted at Railway Station, Ludhiana at present. There is nothing on record to show that he was authorised by the Railways to enter into a compromise with the petitioners. Even otherwise, such a compromise would be of no avail in view of nature of allegations. Accused drove motorcycle at high speed in restricted area, threatened the railway staff and fled. The Station Master while making complaint to the police was merely acting on behalf of the railways. He would, thus, have no authority to enter into compromise with the accused thereafter. In my considered view after public servant lodges an FIR on behalf of its department, 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. 7. Station House Officer of the concerned police station is directed to forward a copy of this order to the concerned Divisional Railway Manager to examine whether conduct of respondent No.2 is in accordance with law, whether any action needs to be initiated against him. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————