-1- Criminal Appeal No.442-SB of 1999. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Appeal No.442-SB of 1999. Date of Decision: February 18, 2010. Darshan Singh and others ... Appellants VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Jatinder Dhanda, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Rohit Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant. Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Impugned in this appeal is the judgment of conviction and the sentence order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, convicting the appellants under Section 148, Section 326 read with Section 149, Section 324 read with Section 149 and Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code') and sentencing them to undergo maximum rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the aforesaid offences. The -2- Criminal Appeal No.442-SB of 1999. substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded under Section 148, Section 326 read with Section 149, Section 324 read with Section 149 and Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Code were ordered to run concurrently. This case has cross version, which is the subject matter of Criminal Appeal No.451-SB of 1999. The same has also been decided today vide separate judgment in Criminal Appeal No.451- SB of 1999. The parties had compromised the matter before the trial Court, as is evident from the impugned sentence order dated 30.4.1999. While sentencing the appellants, the trial Judge observed that no doubt a compromise has been arrived at between the parties but in that eventuality also no lenient view can be taken. Learned counsel for the parties have vouchsafed the authenticity of the compromise before me. As per the ratio of law laid down by a Five Judges Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, (2007-3) Punjab Law Reporter 439, there is no statutory bar under the Code of Criminal Procedure which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that it will be of no use to send the appellants to jail again at -3- Criminal Appeal No.442-SB of 1999. this stage and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment already undergone by the appellants, which is about eleven days after conviction, would be sufficient. Thus, the conviction of the appellants, as mentioned above, is maintained but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for the aforesaid offences is reduced to the period already undergone by them keeping in view the compromise between the parties. However, the sentence of fine imposed upon the appellants for the aforesaid offences by the trial Court and the default clause shall remain unaltered. If the appellants have not deposited the amount of fine so far, they will deposit the same before the trial Court within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appellants are also ordered to deposit Rs.25,000/- in the Government Treasury under the relevant head for payment to the State Legal Authority, Haryana, Chandigarh. This amount shall also be deposited by the appellants within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The sentence order is modified to the extent indicated above. Resultantly, by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this appeal is disposed of in view of the compromise between the parties, mentioned above. February 18, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE