In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-28273 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:24.9.2010 Balwinder Singh .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.81 dated 27.5.2002 (Annexure-P.1) registered at Police Station Malout, District Muktsar for the offences under Sections 326 and 324 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the FIR on the basis of application for permission to compromise dated 7.4.2009 (Annexure-P.2). The FIR in the case has been lodged by the petitioner by his wife Sukhjinder Kaur (respondent No.2). It is alleged by the complainant- Sukhjinder Kaur (respondent No.2) that the petitioner on 27.5.2002 gave a `Kappa' blow on her head, on the right side of her mouth, on her right arm and injured other parts of her body. Her children and mother-in-law raised an alarm and she was rescued by her neighbours and mother-in-law. The petitioner was tried for the offences under Sections 326 and 324 IPC and vide judgment and order dated 5.11.2008 has been convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo Cr. Misc. No.M-28273 of 2010 [2] rigorous imprisonment for three years; besides, to pay a fine of `1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four days. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court which is now fixed for 29.9.2010. It is submitted that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are husband and wife and the FIR was got registered due to matrimonial dispute which has now been compromised and the parties are residing together. Respondent No.2-Sukhjinder Kaur filed an application dated 7.4.2009 (Annexure-P.2) seeking permission to compromise the matter. The said application has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar vide order dated 2.7.2010 with the observations that the offence is not compoundable and since the said Court has no power to compound the offence, the application seeking permission to compromise has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the dispute has been amicably resolved, the FIR may be quashed. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner has been convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malout vide order dated 5.11.2008 and he has been convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years; besides, to pay a fine of `1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four days. In a case where an order of conviction is passed by the learned trial Magistrate the proper course for the petitioner is to raise the contentions on the merit of the case before the learned Additional Sessions Judge where the Cr. Misc. No.M-28273 of 2010 [3] appeal is pending. However, in case he is found guilty and the order of conviction is to be upheld the fact that the matter has been compromised would be a circumstance to be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing him. This Court in the case of Joginder Ram and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2009 (1) RCR (Cr.) 495 held that in a case during appeal where parties have entered into a compromise and filed a petition before this Court for quashing the proceedings on the basis of compromise then the parties ought to first approach the first Appellate Court, which is competent to grant any relief including release of accused on probation on the basis of compromise. Besides, the petitioners would have a legal right to approach this Court if any adverse order is still made against them. Reliance was placed on the case of Ramchandra Singh and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2003) 10 SCC 234. In the said case, the petitioner therein was convicted for an offence under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC. During pendency of the appeal, the parties had entered into a compromise. On the basis of the compromise, the appellant therein was acquitted of the offence under Section 323 IPC. In the said case, the complainant-wife had filed an affidavit clearly stating that she had no wish to pursue the case. Besides, she had also re-married by then. Though the conviction under Section 498-A was directed to be maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment of one year was ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone. One of the appellants therein was also released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, so as to ensure that his job may not be put to jeopardy. Cr. Misc. No.M-28273 of 2010 [4] Therefore, in case of compromise during the pendency of the appeal the proceedings are not normally to be quashed and the fact that the parties have compromised their dispute is a factor which is to be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing in case a finding of guilt is recorded and the appellants are convicted for the offences attributed to them. In the above-noted circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner may pursue his remedies in accordance with law before the learned Additional sessions Judge, Muktsar where his appeal is pending. Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of fee prescribed for urgent applications. September 24, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*