CRM No.56335 of 2010 and ::1:: Crl. Misc. No.M-36050 of 2009 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.56335 of 2010 and Crl. Misc. No.M-36050 of 2009 Date of decision: 29.10.2010 Ajit Singh .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .. Respondents Present:- Mr.Harit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab. Mr.Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. CRM No.56335 of 2010 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner has filed criminal miscellaneous application No.56335 of 2010 for staying further proceedings in the case. Since the main case itself is being taken up, the question regarding stay has been rendered infructuous. The criminal miscellaneous application is accordingly dismissed. Crl. Misc. No.M-36050 of 2009 The petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.442 dated 08.11.2003 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar, against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 427 and 304-A IPC. It is alleged in the FIR that Mohinder Singh (respondent No.2) and his son Balwant Singh @ Lalli (deceased) had come to Nakodar CRM No.56335 of 2010 and ::2:: Crl. Misc. No.M-36050 of 2009 at Maharaja Palace to attend a marriage. On their way back on the scooter, which was being driven by Balwant Singh @ Lalli (deceased) and respondent No.2-Mohinder Singh was riding pillion, at about 5.30 p.m., a bus came from the opposite side and without blowing any horn, the bus- driver hit the scooter, which caused severe injuries to Balwant Singh @ Lalli (deceased). Respondent No.2 fell down on the unmettled road. The respondent No.2 could not read the bus number and the bus-driver fled away. In the meantime, Balwant Singh @ Lalli died. After investigation, the Police filed the charge report (challan) in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. The statement of the complainant was recorded. Thereafter, parties entered into a compromise (Annexure P- 2). In view of the compromise, it is submitted that the FIR and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed. Reply has been filed by way of affidavit of Sh.Rajinder Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Police Sub-Division Nakodar, District Jalandhar. It is submitted that the offences for which the petitioner has been charged, are grave in nature and are not compoundable. Besides, it is stated that the Police is not aware of the compromise. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 accepts that the compromise has been entered into and submits that respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the FIR as the matter has been amicably settled. During the course of hearing, it has been submitted that the prosecution has concluded its entire evidence and the case is now fixed for recording statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, at this stage, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be inexpedient to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise. One of the factors, which is taken into consideration by the Court for quashing a FIR is that the time which is consumed by the Court in deciding CRM No.56335 of 2010 and ::3:: Crl. Misc. No.M-36050 of 2009 the case can be well utilized for deciding other cases. However, in the present case, the time has already been consumed. Besides, the present case is not one which is akin to a dispute, which can be said to be purely personal in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Anil Kumar versus State of Punjab and Anr., 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 258 (P & H). In the said case, the accused was driving the car, which resulted in the death of a person. However, in the said case, the compromise was reached at, at initial stage. In the present case, however, the prosecution evidence has been recorded. Besides, the present case, as already noticed is not such a case, which is purely personal in nature. In the circumstances, no ground for quashing the FIR is made out. The appropriate course is that the petitioner argues his case on merits before the learned trial Court and in case, a finding of guilt is recorded and the petitioner is convicted, the fact that the parties have compromised the matter, would be a circumstance, which the learned trial Court would take into consideration for the purpose of sentencing him including that of releasing him on probation in view of the compromise. Besides, the petitioner would have a legal right to approach the higher Court, if any adverse order is passed against him. In the facts and circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of with the direction that in case, the petitioner is found guilty of the offence alleged, the fact of compromise would be a circumstance, which the learned trial Court shall take into consideration for the purposes of sentencing the petitioner. October 29, 2010 (S.S. SARON) sukhpreet JUDGE