IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 15985 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 16th February, 2011. Sunder Pal Goyal Petitioner through Mr. Vikram Chaudhari, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab for respondents No. 1, 2,4 and 5. Mr. R.S.Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amar Ashok Pathak, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate, for respondent No. 6. Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, for respondent No. 7. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner and those representing respondents No. 3, 6 and 7 that the alleged property dispute has since been compromised. That being so, no further directions are required to be issued by this Court at this stage. Suffice it to observe that the parties shall be at liberty to seek quashing of the criminal proceedings on the basis of the said compromise, before an appropriate forum. Disposed of. Dasti. February 16, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE