High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dr. Gurdev Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 18 May, 2011

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Gurdev Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 18 May, 2011
Criminal Misc. No. M-15378 of 2011                                   1




      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.


                  Criminal Misc. No. M-15378 of 2011

                       Date of Decision: 18.5.2011


Dr. Gurdev Singh and Another
                                                           ...Petitioners
                                 Versus
State of Punjab and Others
                                                         ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.


Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
         for the petitioners.


Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

In the present petition, a prayer has been made that case FIR

No. 91 dated 10.10.2000 registered at Police Station Dayalpura, District

Bathinda, under Section 304-A IPC and Section 15 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956, be quashed along with all the subsequent

proceedings.

It is not disputed that the petitioners were tried and convicted

by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo, vide

its judgment dated 15.1.2007 (Annexure P2). Aggrieved against the

same, the petitioners have filed an appeal, which is pending in the Court

of Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. It is stated that during pendency

of the appeal, a compromise (Annexure P3) has been arrived at

between the parties.

This Court is of the view that once the petitioners have been
Criminal Misc. No. M-15378 of 2011 2

convicted, the compromise cannot be taken into consideration for

quashing the proceedings, however, the same can be construed as a

mitigating circumstance by the Court, while considering reduction in the

sentence or grant of probation. This Court has no doubt that in case the

factum of compromise is brought into notice of the Appellate Court, the

same shall be considered as a mitigating circumstance in consonance

with the law relied by counsel for the petitioners. However, the fact that a

compromise has been arrived at between the parties will not preclude

the petitioners to urge their case, on merits, before the Appellate Court.

With the observations made above, the present petition is

disposed of.

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
May 18, 2011
“DK”