In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-23109 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:11.8.2010 Baldev Singh and another .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. G.N. Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have compromised their dispute in the learned Sessions Court where their appeal is pending against their conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. However, since an order of conviction has been recorded by the learned trial Magistrate, it is submitted that the petitioners may be allowed to withdraw this petition; but if for any reason the petitioners are to be convicted, then the fact that the parties have compromised the matter may be considered for the purposes of sentencing them. In Ram Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1999) 2 SCC 213, the appellants therein were convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC which was non-compoundable. However, considering the fact that the parties had come to a settlement, the sentence imposed was reduced to that already undergone. In Surendra Nath Mohanty v. State of Orissa, (1999) 5 SCC 238, the fact that the parties had settled their dispute after ten years Cr. Misc. No.M-23109 of 2010 [2] from the date of incident, the sentence of three months imprisonment undergone by the appellants therein was reduced to the period already undergone with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The case related to an offence under Section 326 IPC. In Puttaswamy v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 1 SCC 711, it was held that even though an offence is not compoundable, the Court may, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties reduce the sentence imposed while maintaining the conviction. In the present case the conviction has been recorded by the learned trial Court against the petitioners. Therefore, in case the same is maintained, the fact that the parties have compromised the matter can indeed be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing them. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioners may pursue their remedy before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur where their appeal is pending. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in case he comes to the conclusion that the appeal of the petitioners is liable to be dismissed and the finding of guilt is to be maintained, the fact that the matter has been compromised would be a circumstance which would be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing them. August 11, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*