JUDGMENT C.R. DASH, J. - It was about 4.30 P.M. on 28.08.2018. A four-wheeler (Maruti 800 Car) bearing Registration No.OR-14C-3810 lightly hit a two-wheeler bearing Registration No.OR-05V-7774. The spot was at Nayabazar (Cuttack town). Owing to the impact of the light collision, the occupants / riders of the aforesaid two-wheeler fell down on the road. The incident was followed by a public commotion. The driver of the four-wheeler (Maruti 800 car) was man-handled by the local people. Some from the public made a call to the Police. The P.C.R. Van arrived there at the spot. But, before arrival of the P.C.R. Van, one Dillip Singh is alleged to have taken away forcibly the ignition key of the Maruti 800 car in question, and he is alleged to have beaten the driver of the car on his head and other parts of the body. The Police personnels present in the P.C.R. Van asked the driver of the Maruti 800 car to come with them to the Police Station. He protested by saying that he being innocent and he having been man-handled and beaten by the public, why should he go to the Police Station. There was commotion on the road paralyzing the traffic. Some of the police personnels of the P.C.R. Van are alleged to have beaten the driver of the said Maruti 800 car with lathi and the driver of the car was alleged to have been taken to the Police Station forcibly. The said driver of the four-wheeler (Maruti 800 car) was Mr. Debi Prasad Pattnaik, who is a practicing advocate of Orissa High Court. This news spreaded to the advocates’ fraternity. Many Advocates rushed to the concerned Police Station in groups and Mr. Debi Prasad Pattnaik was allowed to leave the Police Station by the police. 2. On 29.08.2018, i.e. on the next day itself of the occurrence, a call for strike was given by the Orissa High Court Bar Association along with other Bar Associations of Cuttack town demanding arrest of five accused persons including the police personnels, a Home-guard and aforesaid Dillip Singh. 2. On 29.08.2018, i.e. on the next day itself of the occurrence, a call for strike was given by the Orissa High Court Bar Association along with other Bar Associations of Cuttack town demanding arrest of five accused persons including the police personnels, a Home-guard and aforesaid Dillip Singh. Subsequently the other Bar Associations of the entire State were invited to the Orissa High Court Bar Association, a meeting was held, a Joint Action Committee was formed and the strike continued, and even today, i.e. on 14.11.2018 the strike is on, demanding arrest of the three police personnels namely Prasanna Kumar Behera (Havildar), Dillip Kumar Samal (Constable) and Udaya Bhuyan (Constable), who are alleged to have beaten advocate Mr. Debi Prasad Pattnaik (the driver of the car in question). In the meantime, accused Dillip Singh and the Home-Guard Kishor Jena have been arrested and released on bail. 3. Many attempts by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Orissa with his good gesture along with his companion judges failed to break the impasse. Order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India directing the lawyers’ fraternity to end the strike also could not yield any positive result. When there was sight for a slight hope of joining the members of the Bar in Court work, some untoward incidents happened and the matter still aggravated prolonging the unfortunate impasse. 4. The Division Bench presided by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Orissa also judicially dealt with the matter, passed different orders and ultimately passed order for supervision of the investigation conducted by the I.G. of Police, CID (Crime Branch), as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by a sitting judge of the Orissa High Court. Though the lawyers of the Bar undertook to call off the strike on passing of that order by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, somehow or other the leadership could not impress upon the General Body of the Bar and thus the strike continued further. 5. During continuance of the strike, an unfortunate incident happened on 29.10.2018 when some lawyers allegedly belonging to a particular political party tried to force their entry to the Court to conduct cases in spite of the strike call by different Bar Associations of the State. 5. During continuance of the strike, an unfortunate incident happened on 29.10.2018 when some lawyers allegedly belonging to a particular political party tried to force their entry to the Court to conduct cases in spite of the strike call by different Bar Associations of the State. On that day, in the corridor of the Court of the Hon’ble Chief Justice (in the heritage building of the High Court) some police personnels, who were on duty in civil dress (plain clothes) were allegedly beaten by some of the advocates, pictures (videos) of which have been captured by different Close-Circuit Cameras installed in the Court’s corridor. One of the police personnels is stated to have been severely injured and some of them narrowly escaped with minor injuries on their person. 6. As I understand from the arguments advanced by the learned counsels from the Bar, since the police personnels were in civil dress, they were mistaken to be the members of the particular political party who had come to the Court premises in guise to create problems in the peaceful strike run by the advocates, and for that reason they were beaten up. It is further submitted that, the advocates so accused had no intention to hurt any police personnel and whatever had been done, was done for mis-identity. 7. In the meantime, the D.G. of Police initiated an endeavour from his side to hold talk with the Office Bearers of the Orissa High Court Bar Association and invited them for a talk to be held in the premises of the office of the D.G.P. The invitation letter was put for consideration of the General Body of the Bar and the General Body agreed to initiate / join in the talk, provided the meeting is held in a third place (an impartial place). Ultimately, the meeting was held at about 5.00 P.M. on 11.11.2018 to resolve the issue and it continued for about three hours. As I understood, the meeting was conducted under the Chairmanship of Dr. R.P. Sharma, D.G. of Police in presence of the President, Secretary of the High Court Bar Association and other members of the Action Committee of different Bars of the State, learned Commissioner of Police (Bhubaneswar-Cuttack), learned I.G. (Headquarters), learned D.C.P., Cuttack and the Office Bearers of the Constable, Sepoys & Havildar Confederation, Odisha (as they were also the stake holders in the meeting). The discussion in the meeting revolved round three principles mainly, i.e. :- (i) The dignity of the Lawyers as a community should be preserved; (ii) The moral of the Force (Police) should not be down; and (iii) Modalities for checking recurrence of such type of incident in future. 8. The discussions in the aforesaid meeting, as I understand, was positive and it was conducted in a cordial and friendly manner. The larger interest of the general public was the driving force for all the participants in the meeting. The following mutual acceptable solutions with follow up modalities and sequences were to be worked out, as decided in the meeting :- (i) The alleged erring police personnels shall feel sorry for their act relating to the incident dated 28.08.2018 and shall apologise; (ii) Two of the lawyers from amongst the accused lawyers, who are alleged to have beaten the police personnels on 29.10.2018 in the High Court’s corridor, shall feel sorry for their act and shall apologise. (iii) All the cases and counter cases relating to the alleged incident dated 28.08.2018 and 29.10.2018 shall be withdrawn. (iv) The modalities, as aforesaid, shall be taken up after the strike is called off. 9. Still the strike was not called off, the Division Bench presided by Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 12.11.2018 passed order keeping in abeyance the order passed by competent Authority, revoking the suspension order of the so called three erring police personnels. On the same day itself in this CRLMP, prayer was made to give effect to the compromise reached in the meeting dated 11.11.2018, by a judicial order in the larger public interest. Accordingly, the case (CRLMP) is taken up today on the basis of the composition reached in the meeting dated 11.11.2018 under the Chairmanship of the learned D.G. of Police. 10. Sri Prasanna Kumar Behera (Havildar No.163), Sri Dillip Kumar Samal (Constable No.C/447) and Sri Udaya Bhuyan (Constable No.OAPF/58) being personally present in Court felt sorry for the alleged incident dated 28.08.2018 and begged unqualified apology before the Court for the said unfortunate incident dated 28.08.2018. They have also filed a written memo to that effect in Court today, which be kept on record. 11. Mr. They have also filed a written memo to that effect in Court today, which be kept on record. 11. Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, learned Secretary of the Orissa High Court Bar Association, who is stated to be an accused in the alleged incident dated 29.10.2018, with much magnanimity, apologized before this Court for the unfortunate incident dated 29.10.2018. He also files a written memo to that effect, which be kept on record. It is specifically submitted that, though the lawyers have gone on strike for a cause, they have no grudge against the entire police force, and the incident dated 29.10.2018 happened unfortunately under a peculiar circumstance. 12. I feel appropriate to reproduce here a quote of Bishop Robert South, which I think is apt to the situation and convey the idea that nobody belittle himself by saying “sorry” – “ Repentance hath a purifying power, and every tear is of a cleansing virtue; but these penitential clouds must be still kept dropping; one shower will not suffice; for repentance is not one single action, but a course.” Repentance or feeling sorry for a particular act is not the act of a coward. It needs courage, it needs dignity, it needs proper human values in a person. A man, who can feel sorry, is undoubtedly a courageous and dignified human being. As quoted supra, if repentance would be a course and not a single action, the act for which we repent shall not get repeated in future. I must appreciate the wisdom of Dr. R.P. Sharma, learned D.G. of Police, who confined the discussion among the stake holders in the meeting dated 11.11.2018 to two cardinal principles :- (i) Preservation of the dignity of the Lawyers as a community, and (ii) Preservation of the moral of the Force. 13. The dignity of a lawyer is everything to him (lawyer). The dignity of the Court also depends on the dignity of the lawyers in the society. Much credibility of the Bar Associations in the public eye has had been lost for this prolonged strike, and I must appreciate the efforts of learned members of the Bar who had participated in the meeting dated 11.11.2018 for conducting themselves in the meeting in a dignified manner exhibiting their broadness of mind than meanness of heart. Such an appreciation must also be bestowed on the Office Bearers of the Odisha Constable, Sepoys & Havildar Confederation. Such an appreciation must also be bestowed on the Office Bearers of the Odisha Constable, Sepoys & Havildar Confederation. 14. If the dignity of a lawyer is lost, everything is lost for him. It is like the virtue of a chaste woman and the health of a living being. If that one is lost, everything is lost. Who is an advocate ? A man of dignity, a man who is disciplined in his utterance and conduct, one who is suave, a man who commands respect in the society, a wise man, a logical man, a prudent man, one who is brilliant in his work and steady in his perseverance, one who is courageous, broad and level headed, one who has all the human qualities of benchmark value like compassion, empathy, love for truth and justice, and so on, and in one word, someone who is a gentleman. If one claims himself to be an advocate, he must ask himself whether he has any of the above qualities, whether he is disciplined in his conduct and utterances and whether he is a gentleman. 15. Whatever was done, was done. But the damage that has been done to the general public by a prolonged strike cannot be compensated in any way. I can also feel the plight of marginal advocates and the new entrants to the Bar, who are still working as Juniors, for this prolonged strike. The dignity of the lawyers have however been preserved because of their sincere attempt to settle all the matters, respecting the larger interest of the public by shifting their stand. I trust and hope that the learned lawyers must be satisfied with the result that came after the prolonged strike. Critics with a myopic vision and a narrow perspective may question, “who won or who lost ultimately ?” They may say if the strike could have been called off on the ground of unqualified apology tendered by the erring police officials, why such prolongation of the strike period ? I would say, it was not a battle or war between the lawyers and the police. It was a fight for a cause. I would say, it was not a battle or war between the lawyers and the police. It was a fight for a cause. Much efforts were put by Hon’ble the Chief Justice (who is totally new to the State), by the leadership of the Bar and the agencies of the State to bring down the matter to today’s situation, which would not have been possible, but for the perseverance and continuous efforts of all the stake holders. The matter is ultimately going to be resolved not in a “win-loss situation” but a “win-win situation” for all in the larger public interest. I therefore appreciate the courage of both the Bar Association and the Constable, Sepoys & Havildar Confederation to bring the matter to an end in a “win-win situation”. None has won, none has lost, but the beam of a win is there in everybody’s face and that is the power of reaching a composition. 16. Moral of the Force, according to me, is the prime mover for the police personnels to act against injustice, control law and order situation and to fight against the criminals and the extremist elements. If that morale is down for any reason today, tomorrow there may be anarchy in the society. The way the matter has been brought to an end by efforts of all deserve appreciation. According to Lassiez Fair Theory, no doubt, the police is a necessary evil for a developed society. But they are necessary to preserve law and order and to provide security to us, so that we can live peacefully and enjoy our liberty in a free and fearless manner. 17. The meeting dated 11.11.2018 held under the Chairmanship of the learned D.G. of Police having resolved to take certain steps, I feel it proper, in the larger public interest and for the benefit of the litigant public who are yearning for the protection of their rights, to give judicial stamp to the composition reached. Extraordinary situation not only needs extraordinary remedy but also needs extraordinary approach. I, therefore, invoke my plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ordain the composition reached on 11.11.2018, by judicial clothing. 18. Regarding the alleged incident dated 28.08.2018, the following cases have been initiated :- (i) Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.215 of 2018 / CID-CB Case No.17 of 2018 (Siba Prasad Sahu – informant vrs. I, therefore, invoke my plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ordain the composition reached on 11.11.2018, by judicial clothing. 18. Regarding the alleged incident dated 28.08.2018, the following cases have been initiated :- (i) Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.215 of 2018 / CID-CB Case No.17 of 2018 (Siba Prasad Sahu – informant vrs. Debi Prasad Pattnaik – accused) – Offence under Sections 279/337/338/294/323/506, I.P.C. (ii) Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.216 of 2018 / CID-CB Case No.18 of 2018 (Hav. Prasanna Kumar Behera – informant vrs. Debi Prasad Pattnaik – accused), Offence under Sections 294/323/353/506, I.P.C. (iii) Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.217 of 2018 / CID-CB Case No.19 of 2018 (Debi Prasad Pattnaik – informant vrs. Hav. Prasanna Kumar Behera, Dillip Kumar Samal, Udaya Bhuyan, Kishor Jena and Dillip Singh – accused), Offence under Sections 294/325/307/34, I.P.C. (iv) Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.218 of 2018 / CID-CB Case No.20 of 2018 (Dillip Singh – informant vrs. Debi Prasad Pattnaik – accused), Offence under Sections 279/323/294/506, I.P.C. In all the aforesaid four cases, Notice by the Police was given to the accused persons under Section 41-A, Cr.P.C. Sri Prasanna Kumar Behera, Havildar, Dillip Kumar Samal, Constable and Udaya Bhuyan, Constable appeared before the Police in obedience to the Notice under Section 41-A, Cr.P.C. and their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. were recorded. Accused Dillip Singh and Kishor Jena (Home-Guard) however did not appear in obedience to the Notice under Section 41-A, Cr.P.C. Therefore, both of them were arrested, their statements were recorded, they were produced before the Magistrate and released on bail. 19. In course of supervision of the cases, I have found that no offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is made out prima facie against any of the accused persons. However, the I.O. was directed to look into that aspect taking into consideration the entire materials on record, at the time of filing of charge-sheet. Notice having been given to the accused persons in all the cases under Section 41-A, Cr.P.C., it can be held that, no accused person(s) is involved in any serious offence. Therefore, taking into consideration the larger interest of the public and especially the interest of the litigants, the F.I.Rs. in all the aforesaid four cases are quashed. 20. Notice having been given to the accused persons in all the cases under Section 41-A, Cr.P.C., it can be held that, no accused person(s) is involved in any serious offence. Therefore, taking into consideration the larger interest of the public and especially the interest of the litigants, the F.I.Rs. in all the aforesaid four cases are quashed. 20. So far as the unfortunate incident dated 29.10.2018 is concerned, on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by one Jitu Nemai, Lalbag P.S. Case No.167 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 341/323/325/294/427/365/506/395/34, I.P.C. has been initiated. Similarly, on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by one Satya Narayan Chhualsingh, Lalbag P.S. Case No.166 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 332/294/365/395/34, I.P.C. has been initiated. It is fairly submitted at the Bar that, addition of Section 395, I.P.C. in the F.I.R. is a technical addition, as the incident happened in a mob frenzy and offence under Section 365, I.P.C. in both the cases has been added, as the police personnels were dragged to the Bar Association Hall on the ground of mis-identity that they are members of a political party. However, the matter having been settled between the parties and apology having been tendered by one of the supposed accused persons and especially the Secretary of the High Court Bar Association, the F.I.Rs. in both the aforesaid cases are also quashed. 21. Competent petition may be filed by the State before the Division Bench of Hon’ble the Chief Justice for recalling the order dated 12.11.2018, keeping in abeyance the administrative order of revocation of the suspension in respect of Havildar Sri Prasanna Kumar Behera, Constable Sri Dillip Kumar Samal and Constable Udaya Bhuyan, and the same may / shall be dealt with judicially in view of quashing of the F.I.Rs. in all the aforesaid cases. Any consequential administrative proceeding initiated against the lleged erring police personnels be dropped by the competent authority in the administrative side. 22. I feel persuaded to observe here that the magnanimity of the parties in saying “sorry” before the Court and tendering apology for the respective incidents shall not be treated as “Admission” for any subsequent legal proceeding, if any. 23. 22. I feel persuaded to observe here that the magnanimity of the parties in saying “sorry” before the Court and tendering apology for the respective incidents shall not be treated as “Admission” for any subsequent legal proceeding, if any. 23. Though the talk among the parties was initiated mainly on three principles, the minutes of the meeting supplied to me by the State does not address the third principle, i.e. checking of recurrence of such incident in future. Now-a-days, if someone throws a stone, that may land on the head of a person, who may claim himself to be an advocate, though he may not be a real advocate in the true sense of the term. Any person having a license granted by the Bar Council is technically treated as an advocate. But, in fact, an advocate is one who has got a standing practice in litigation side. If I address the issue on my own without assistance from experts, the guidelines so framed may be a cloak for some unwanted persons to take undue benefit by diminishing the morale of the force. In view of such fact, I direct the appropriate Government to constitute a Committee under the Chairmanship of a retired High Court Judge of the choice of the Government within 7 (seven) days from today. The Additional Chief Secretary to Govt. in Home Department shall be the Member Secretary of the said Committee and other official members shall be (1) Secretary to Govt. in Law Department, (2) D.G. of Police, (3) I.G. of Police (Headquarters) and (4) Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar-Cuttack. Further, the President and Secretary of the Orissa High Court Bar Association in their official capacity shall be the Ex-officio Members of the Committee. Besides them, 3 (three) advocates selected by the Executive Body of the Orissa High Court Bar Association shall be the Members of the Committee, out of whom 2 (two) Members must be recognized Senior Advocates with minimum 35/40 years of practice experience, who, in my view, have seen transition of law, lawyers and lawyering. No Advocate member of the proposed Committee should be a member of any political party. The Committee should be constituted within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of this order, and they shall give their report within 2 (two) months of their first meeting. No Advocate member of the proposed Committee should be a member of any political party. The Committee should be constituted within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of this order, and they shall give their report within 2 (two) months of their first meeting. The non-official Members of the Committee shall be given T.A. and D.A. at the rate applicable to the learned Advocate General for each day’s sitting. The recommendation of the Committee shall be scrutinized judicially after it is received with the assistance and submissions by Members of the Bar, who may volunteer to submit before the Court in the matter. It is reiterated here that, the Committee shall suggest ways and means and modalities for checking recurrence of such incident in future. 24. Before parting with the order, I may mention here that the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of EX-CAPT. HARISH UPPAL vrs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER, (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 45, have held that Lawyers have no right to go on strike or even token strike or to give a call for boycott of Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court having given the reason for such a conclusion, I do not find it proper to reiterate the same by extraction. I, however, request the Orissa High Court Bar Association to take appropriate measures not to jump on unnecessary strike on prima facie picture of a particular incident, without applying wisdom on the entire issue. 25. Fraction in the Bar on party line is not a good sign for the Bar and Bench. Though I have no advisory jurisdiction to advise the Bar Association regarding the aftermath that followed the incident dated 29.10.2018, I hope and trust that, forgetting all past bickering, all members of the Bar crossing party-line shall be one again for the larger interest of the Bar. 26. I also appreciate the assistance rendered by all concerned in course of hearing of the case, including the assistance by the Addl. Government Advocate and the Addl. Standing Counsel. 27. List this matter in the last week of January, 2019 for further orders. 28. Five free copies of this order be supplied to the learned Advocate General, Odisha for onward transmission of the same to different Government Authorities. Ordered accordingly.