Crl. Misc. No.M-18616 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-18616 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 21, 2010 Ahmed Hussain …..Petitioner Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings and conviction order has been prayed for on the basis of compromise. The FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.2 on the allegation that his son- Narinder Kumar was run over by a matador being driven by the petitioner. It appears that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Respondent No.2 was represented by Mr.G.S.Thind, Advocate on Crl. Misc. No.M-18616 of 2010 [2] the first date of hearing but today, no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2. There is no bar for this Court to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise as per the law laid down in the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052. But since respondent No.2 has not put in appearance to admit the factum of compromise, this petition is dismissed. However, it is ordered that in case the complainant and petitioner make a statement before the lower Appellate Court regarding the matter having been compromised and adequate compensation having been awarded to the heirs of the deceased, it will be open to the lower Appellate Court to either adjudicate the matter on merits and acquit the petitioner in case circumstances so warrant or in the alternative, in case of conviction, to grant the relief of probation taking into consideration the compromise as a mitigating circumstance. September 21, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE