Crl. Misc. No.M-20110 of 2009 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-20110 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 30, 2010 Gian Parkash Gupta and others …..Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana Mr. Navjot Sidhu, Advocate for Mr.Hemant Bassi, Advocate for respondent No.2. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) I am satisfied that after conviction order having been passed against the petitioners, the complainant has entered into a compromise with the petitioners. The parties seek quashing of FIR and all the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of compromise relying upon Crl. Misc. No.M-20110 of 2009 (O&M) [2] the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052. No doubt, quashing in a non-compoundable offence is permitted in the exercise inherent jurisdiction by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but in view of the statutory bar under Section 320 (5) Cr.P.C. prohibiting compounding after the conviction order, I do not deem it appropriate to exercise the inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. However, it is directed that the factum of compromise will be taken into consideration by the lower Appellate Court to pass an order of acquittal; grant benefit of doubt or to grant the benefit of probation, as deemed appropriate by the lower Appellate Court. The compromise will be considered as a mitigating circumstance while adjudication of the appeal. It is further ordered that in case the lower Appellate Court for any reason passes any conviction order, the petitioners will not be sent behind bars for a period of 10 days after the final order to enable them to avail any legal remedy available to them taking the benefit of the compromise. Disposed of. September 30, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE