In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-34074 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:22.1.2010 Rachhpal Singh and others .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. M.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Rachhpal Singh son of Avtar Singh (petitioner No.1), who is the complainant, and other injured have filed this petition seeking quashing of the FIR in view of the compromise (Annexure-P.2). The accused in the case, namely, Khuskaran Singh, Harmail Singh, Ajmer Singh, Fauja Singh and Raj Singh have been convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur vide judgment and order dated 4.3.2008. They have been sentenced to imprisonment for two years for various offences. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Against the order dated 4.3.2008 an appeal is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. The parties have now entered into a compromise. Rachhpal Singh (petitioner No.1) is present in Court and is identified by his counsel. It is stated that he has entered into a compromise (Annexure-P.2) with the accused; besides, he has also deposed an affidavit (Annexure-P.3) to the Cr. Misc. No.M-34074 of 2009 [2] effect of compromise. It is stated that the compromise has been entered into by him of his own free will. At the stage where a finding of guilt and conviction has already been recorded, the FIR is not normally to be quashed. In Surendra Nath Mohanty and another v. State of Orissa, AIR 1999 SC 2181 it was held that considering the fact that the parties had settled their dispute outside the Court and the fact that 10 years have elapsed from the date of the incident and the fact that appellants therein had undergone 3 months of imprisonment as per the sentence imposed on them it was considered that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone besides imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/- on each of the accused therein under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. Therefore, the fact that a compromise has been entered into in the present case would be a circumstance which can be taken into consideration if the appeal of the convicts before the Sessions Court is not accepted and is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, the FIR at this stage is not liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of with the direction that in case the appeal of the convicts before the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not accepted and is dismissed, the fact that the parties have compromised the matter shall be taken into account by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the purpose of sentencing them. January 22, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*