IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 2472 of 2009 Date of decision: January 30, 2009 Harjit Singh ….. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents Present: Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) has been filed seeking quashing of case FIR No. 61 dated 29.4.2004 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Ramdass Police Distt. Majitha for the offences under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC. The quashing of the FIR has been sought on the basis of compromise dated 12.10.2007 (Annexure P2). The compromise has been entered into between Harprit Kaur complainant/respondent whose son Bhupinder Singh died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 29.4.2004. Harprit Kaur (respondent No.2/complainant) has received a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- from the petitioner who is the accused in the FIR and therefore, it is prayed by the petitioner that the FIR and all consequential proceedings be quashed. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire evidence in the case has been concluded. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the offence under Section 304-A IPC for which the petitioner has been charged is not a compoundable offence. Though, the powers of this Court to quash the case Crl. Misc. No. M- 2472 of 2009 [2] which is not compoundable are not limited or affected by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC, however, the said power is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the entire evidence in the case has been led and now the case is fixed for final arguments. Therefore, at this stage to quash the impugned FIR and proceedings on the basis of compromise in a case which is otherwise non- compoundable would be improper. The question of compromise having been effected is certainly a factor which can be urged and taken into consideration by the trial Court while imposing the sentence in case a finding of guilt is recorded. Therefore, in the circumstances, in case the petitioner is found guilty, the fact that the compromise has been entered into can be urged for the purpose of imposing the sentence. However, at this stage when the entire evidence has been concluded, it would be improper for this Court to short-circuit or bypass the procedure by ready resort to the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it would be open to the petitioner in the event of his being found guilt to press the compromise in question for the purpose of probation. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE January 30, 2009 amit