IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-10089 of 2008 Date of decision : 06.1.2010 Mohmad Ashraf and Others …. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another …. Respondents Present: Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. Mr. A.S. Kakkar, Advocate for respondent No.2 **** S.S. SARON, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.260 dated 14.8.2002 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Malerkotla for the offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same on the basis of compromise. There are various cases pending between the petitioners and the complainant namely Gursev Singh. In terms of the impugned FIR dated 14.8.2002 (Annexure P1), the petitioners have been convicted by the learned trial Magistrate vide judgment and order dated 26.7.2005. The appeal of the petitioners is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. During the pendency of Crl. Misc. No. M-10089 of 2008 [2] the appeal, the parties have entered into a compromise and a compromise deed dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure P2) has been recorded. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the compromise having been effected between the parties, the impugned FIR dated 14.8.2002 (Annexure P1) and all subsequent and consequential proceedings in pursuance thereof are liable to be quashed. Learned State counsel has submitted that there are ten other cases pending against Mohd. Ashraf @ Chikni (petitioner No.1). Besides, after an order of conviction has been passed, the FIR is not liable to be quashed. Mr. A.S. Kakkar, Advocate, learned counsel appearing of the complainant Gursev Singh and injured Gagandeep Singh has submitted that in view of the compromise having been effected between the parties, the complainant and the injured have no objection to the quashing of the FIR. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and perused the record. In respect of proceedings where a finding of guilt has been recorded by the trial Court, the FIR is not normally to be quashed. However, the same can be a factor for consideration while sentencing an accused in case the appeal against the findings of guilt and conviction recorded by the trial Court is not accepted. In Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 (1) RCR (Crl.) 1, the Supreme Court considered a case regarding compromise being effected between the parties therein for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The sentence awarded to the convicts in the said case was reduced to that already undergone by them. Reliance Crl. Misc. No. M-10089 of 2008 [3] was placed on the case of Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 9 SCC 255, Murugesan v. Ganapathy Velar, (2001) 10 SCC 504 and Ishwarlal v. State of M.P., JT 1988 (3) SC 366 (1). The Supreme Court while taking into account the fact of compromise between the parties, reduced the sentence imposed on the appellant- convict in the said case to that already undergone though the offences were not compoundable. Therefore, in the circumstances, in case the appeal against the conviction of the petitioners is dismissed by the learned Appellate Court, the matter regarding the compromise being effected between the parties would be a circumstance which would be taken into consideration by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at that stage for the purposes of sentencing. Consequently, the Crl. Misc. petition is disposed of. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE January 6, 2010 amit