Criminal Misc. No. M-36653 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-36653 of 2009 Date of decision : 27.07.2010 Bhupinder Singh and another ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No. 1-State. Mr. Sanjay Nagpal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) By this order, I intend to decide two petitions i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-36653 of 2009 titled as Bhupinder Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab & another AND Crl. Misc. No. M-36644 of 2009 titled as Lakhwinder Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another. In these two petitions, the prayer is for quashing of complaint Nos. 08 & 67 dated 05.05.1999 entertained under Sections 406/498-A read with Section 34 IPC and all proceedings consequent thereto on the basis of alleged compromise, Annexure P-3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties the complainant and consequent proceedings deserve to be quashed. Criminal Misc. No. M-36653 of 2009 2 Learned State counsel has opposed this prayer and submits that petitioners were convicted by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib and their appeal is now pending before Sessions Judge. He submits that the complaint cannot be quashed at the appellate stage on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/complainant has submitted that there is no compromise between the parties and plea of the petitioners is totally false. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that present petition for quashing of the complaint was entertained only on the basis of alleged compromise arrived at between the parties. However, factum of compromise has been denied by learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2(complainant). There is, thus, no merit in the contention that complaint and consequent proceedings need to be quashed on the basis of compromise. Even otherwise in view of Section 320(5) Cr.P.C. when an accused has been convicted and appeal is pending, no composition of offence is to be allowed without the leave of the court before which the appeal is to be heard. In view of above, I am of the considered view that present petition is mis-conceived. The same is hereby dismissed. July 27, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE