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”