IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-19892 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.09.2011 Bikkar Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents Crl. Misc. No. M-19896 of 2011 (O&M) Balwinder Singh @ Binder Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala. DAG, Punjab Mr. Yatharth Hans, Advocate for respondent No. 2 MAHESH GROVER, J. This order shall dispose of two petitions i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-19892 of 2011 and Crl. Misc. No. M-19896 of 2011. The petitioners make a prayer for quashing of version and cross version of FIR and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the ground that the parties have settled the matter. The brief facts taken from Crl. Misc. No. M-19892 of 2011 are as under:- The petitioners were accused of having committed an Crl. Misc. No. M-19892 of 2011 (O&M) 2 offence under Sections 326, 324, 323, 148 and 149 IPC and the occurrence has been recorded in the FIR No. 235 dated 16.12.1998 at Police Station Zira, District Ferozepur. The trial Court tried, convicted and sentenced the petitioners. Against which they preferred an appeal which is pending before the Appellate Court. It is thus during the period that the parties have settled the matter. A conviction having coming into existence the question whether the proceedings, FIR and consequential proceedings could be set aside which has the effect of setting aside a conviction is a moot point. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage of the proceedings without adverting to the aforesaid proposition states that in view of the compromise the Court should take a lenient view of the situation and reduce the sentence of the petitioners appropriately to that of already undergone for the reasons that compromise is in the interest of the parties and would result in ensuing peace and harmony between them. He has also referred to the case of the Full Bench in Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab 2007 (3) Law Herald 2225 and the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The factum of compromise has not been controverted by learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3. He has filed a separate affidavit to that effect. On due consideration of the mater, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal is pending before the Appellate Court and it is for that Court before whom the proceedings are pending to take an appropriate decision in this regard. In view of Crl. Misc. No. M-19892 of 2011 (O&M) 3 this, the matter is disposed of with a direction to learned Appellate Court to look into the appeal preferred by the petitioners and evaluate the effect of the compromise and take a decision considering the fact that they have settled the matter. Disposed of as above. (MAHESH GROVER) 14.09.2011 JUDGE reena