Criminal Misc. No. M-15220 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-15220 of 2011 Date of Decision: 18.5.2011 Khushdil Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Deep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 193 dated 8.9.2004, registered at Police Station Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana, under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 IPC on the basis of compromise dated 28.4.2011 (Annexure P3). The petitioner was tried in the above said FIR and was convicted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, vide its judgment dated 10.5.2010. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The appeal, according to the learned counsel, has not been decided. An argument has been advanced before me that the parties have now arrived at a compromise, therefore, this Court should quash all the proceedings arising out of the above said FIR. I am afraid, the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot sustain Criminal Misc. No. M-15220 of 2011 2 in the eyes of law as the same is against the settled mandate of law. In Puttaswamy v. State of Karnataka and Another (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 711, it has been held that once conviction is recorded, on the basis of a compromise, the proceedings cannot be quashed. However, the compromise can always be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance while determining the quantum of sentence. This Court has no doubt that in case the factum of compromise is brought into the notice of the Appellate Court, the same shall act in accordance with the ratio of law laid down in Puttaswamy's case(supra) and shall consider reduction in the sentence awarded to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed of. However, the observations made above shall not eclipse the rights of the petitioner to urge his case on merits. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge May 18, 2011 “DK”