1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 16719-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 3.9.2009 *** Baldev Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab Mr. A.S. Khinda, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 266 dated 7.10.2000, registered against him under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Kapurthala and consequential proceedings taken therein, on the basis of compromise. The impugned FIR was got registered by respondent No.2 containing the allegations that the petitioner, with his rash and negligent driving, hit the car driven by the complainant, as a result of which the grandson of the complainant died at the spot while he and his other grandson received multiple injuries. Pursuant to a compromise effected between the parties, the instant petition has been filed along with the affidavit (Annexure P-3) of complainant, affirming the said compromise. During arguments, it has been pointed out by the learned State counsel that the trial of the case has almost been completed and final verdict has to come out in the case. The offence under Section 304-A is not covered by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The situation in the case of Puttaswamy 2 Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. 2009(1) SCC 711, referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner, is post conviction one whereas in the instant case the trial has concluded but the verdict has still to come. Therefore, considering this aspect of the matter, honouring the compromise entered between the parties and the law, referred to above, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to first conclude the trial and render the verdict in the matter in accordance with law, without being influenced from any observations made above. However, in case the petitioner is held guilty, in that eventuality the trial court shall take into consideration the factum of compromise between the parties, while convicting him, in view of the legal position enumerated above. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE September 3, 2009 Jiten