CRR No.2297 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.2297 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.03.2011 Balbir Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Rajesh Bhatheja, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. AG, Punjab. Mr. Amandeep Chhabra, Advocate, for the complainant. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) CRM No.13056 of 2011 For the reasons shown in the application, same is allowed and compromise dated 1.3.2011 arrived at between the parties is taken on record. CRR No.2297 of 2006 All the revisionists were found guilty for offences punishable under Sections 148/342/324/323 of the Indian Penal Code and were directed to undergo imprisonment as under: - A) U/s 148 IPC: To undergo R.I. For six months and also to pay fine to the tune of Rs.500/- or in default, he shall undergo R.I. for one month. B) U/s 342 IPC: To undergo R.I. For three months and to pay fine of Rs.250/- or in default he shall further undergo R.I. for one month. CRR No.2297 of 2006 (O&M) -2- C) U/s 324 IPC: To undergo R.I. For six months and to pay fine to the tune of Rs.500/- and in default to further undergo R.I. for one month. D) U/s 323 IPC: To undergo R.I. For three months and also to pay fine of Rs.250/- and in default to further undergo R.I. for one month. Mr. Rakesh Bhatheja, learned counsel appearing for the revisionists and Mr. Amandeep Chhabra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, made a statement that the accused and the complainant are present in the Court and they have settled the dispute. They further stated that offences under Sections 323 and 342 IPC are compoundable and offence under Section 324 read with Sections 148 and 149 IPC can be compounded with the permission of the Court. Having perused the compromise, I am satisfied that in order to maintain communal harmony and cordial relations between the parties, conviction order passed by both the Courts below should be set aside in the interest of justice. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, has no objection if matter is permitted to be compounded to maintain peace and harmony between the parties. Present revision is, thus, allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. (Alok Singh) Judge March 16, 2011 R.S.