Crl. Misc. No.M-32234 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-32234 of 2010 Date of decision: 02.11.2010 Amarjit Kumar @ Laddi and others .. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .. Respondents Present:- Mr.J.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.A.P.S.Mann, Addl. A.G., Punjab. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.54 dated 08.05.2001 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshirapur, for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 326, 148 and 149 IPC. The FIR has been registered on the statement of Roshan Lal (respondent No.2). It is stated that due to some misunderstanding a fight had ensued between the petitioners and respondent No.2 on account of which the FIR (Annexure P-1) was registered. However, with the intervention of common friends and elder persons of the village, the dispute has been amicably resolved and a compromise (Annexure P-2) is stated to have been entered into. It is prayed that the FIR (Annexure P-1) and consequential proceedings may be quashed. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that petitioner No.1 Amarjit Kumar @ Laddi was declared a Proclaimed Offender. Besides, petitioners No.2 to 4 were convicted by the learned trial Court vide order dated 04.07.2008 and an appeal against that Crl. Misc. No.M-32234 of 2010 ::2:: order is pending before the learned Sessions Court. It is stated that the FIR i(Annexure P-1) is liable to be quashed in view of the compromise (Annexure P-2). As already noticed, the petitioners No.2 to 4 have been convicted by the learned trial Court. Therefore, in such circumstances, the proper course would be that the petitioners No.2 to 4 approach the learned Sessions Court and make their submissions on merits of the case. However, in case, they are found guilty by the learned Sessions Court and convicted, the fact that they have compromised the matter would be a circumstance which would be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing them. This Court in the case of Joginder Ram and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 495 held that in a case during appeal where parties have entered into a compromise and filed a petition before this Court for quashing the proceedings on the basis of compromise then the parties ought to first approach the Ist Appellate Court, which is competent to grant any relief including release of accused on probation on the basis of compromise. Besides, the petitioners would have a legal right to approach this Court if any adverse order is still made against them. Reliance was placed on the case of Ramchandra Singh and Others v. State of Bihar and another, (2003) 10 SCC 234. In the said case, the petitioner therein was convicted for the offences under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC. During pendency of the appeal, the parties had entered into a compromise. On the basis of the compromise, the appellant therein was acquitted of the offence under Section 323 IPC. In the said case, the complainant-wife had filed an affidavit clearly stating that she had no wish to pursue the case. Besides, she had also re-married by then. Though the conviction under Section 498-A was directed to be maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment of one year was ordered to Crl. Misc. No.M-32234 of 2010 ::3:: be reduced to the period already undergone. One of the appellants therein was also released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, so as to ensure that his job may not be put to jeopardy. Therefore, in a case of compromise during the pendency of the appeal the proceedings are not normally to be quashed and the fact that the parties have compromised their dispute is a factor which is to be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing them in case a finding of guilt is recorded and the appellants are convicted for the offences attributed to them. Insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned, it may be noticed that petitioner No.1 was declared a proclaimed offender and proceedings against a proclaimed offender are not normally to be quashed. However, petitioner No.1 on his surrender before the concerned Court, is liable to be tried by the Court in accordance with law and in case a finding of guilt is recorded, the fact that the matter has been compromised, would be a circumstance which would be considered for the purposes of sentencing him. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for quashing the FIR (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) is made out. However, the petitioner No.1 may pursue his remedy in accordance with law before the learned trial Court and petitioners No.2 to 4 may pursue their remedy before the learned Sessions Court, Hoshiarpur. In case, a finding of guilt is recorded against the petitioners, the fact that they have compromised the matter would be circumstance, which is liable to be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing them. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of accordingly. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE November, 02, 2010 sukhpreet