-1- Criminal Revision No.1805 of 2002. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1805 of 2002. Date of Decision: February 15, 2010. Satpal Vohra ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...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. Amardeep Singh Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Satpal Vohra was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under Sections 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'). For the -2- Criminal Revision No.1805 of 2002. former offence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. For the latter offence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence, as recorded by the trial Court, was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition. The parties have now compromised the matter. The instant F.I.R was registered at the instance of Chuni Lal Vohra, who is none else than the father of the petitioner. Compromise, which was presented before the trial Magistrate, has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. The dispute related to Rs.2,00,000/-, which amount has since been received by the complainant. It has also been mentioned in the compromise that the complainant did not want to proceed against the petitioner as he (complainant) wanted to make the atmosphere in the family tension free. The authenticity of the compromise has been vouchsafed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 -3- Criminal Revision No.1805 of 2002. 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 petitioner to jail again at this stage and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner, which is two months and seven days, as is evident from the Custody Certificate produced on record, would be sufficient. Thus, the conviction of petitioner Satpal Vohra under Sections 468 and 120-B of the Code is maintained but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for these offences is reduced to the period already undergone by him keeping in view the compromise between the parties. However, the sentence of fine shall remain unaltered. As is evident from the order dated 25.10.2002, the sentence of the petitioner was suspended during the pendency of this petition subject to his depositing fine. As he is on bail, he must have deposited the fine. The sentence order is modified to the extent indicated above. Resultantly, by invoking the inherent power 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 15, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE