IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-14754 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 13th May, 2011 Baljinder Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of all the proceedings arising out of a case FIR No.65 dated 27.03.2004 registered at Police Station Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC. The petitioner was tried in the above said FIR and was convicted by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur vide its impugned judgment dated 17th September, 2007. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. The appeal, according to the counsel, has not yet 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 in the eyes of law as the same is against the settled mandate of law. In Criminal Misc. No. M-14754 of 2011 (O&M) ‘Puttaswamy v. State of Karnataka and another’ (2009) 1 SCC 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, 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 13, 2011 rps 2