IF COMPROMISE ARRIVED BETWEEN THE PARTIES FOR BAIL BENIFITS GOES IN TRAIL

IF COMPROMISE ARRIVED BETWEEN THE PARTIES FOR BAIL BENIFITS GOES IN TRAIL

(not confined or restricted to the matter of bail only but the same pertained to the entire case)

Lahore High Court
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J

Manzoor Ahmed And Another VS The State And 2 Other
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 117-Q of 2003
4th July, 2003
Reported As [P L D 2003 Lahore 739]

JUDGMENT
The necessary facts giving rise to the present petition filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Are that the petitioners are accused persons in case F.I.R. No.202 registered at Police Station Ganda Singhwala, District Kasur on 6-11-2000 for offences under sections 452/337-A(ii)/337-F(i)/34, P.P.C. Section 452, P.P.C. Was deleted from the F.I.R. During the investigation of this case. Respondent No.2 happens to be the complainant of the above mentioned criminal case and respondent No.3 is the injured victim. The said criminal case is presently pending adjudication before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kasur and the stage of the trial is that a charge has already been framed against the petitioners and the case is now fixed for recording of the prosecution evidence. An application had been submitted by the petitioners before the learned trial Court seeking their acquittal under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. But that application of the petitioners was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 5-5-2003. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the petitioners had been arrested in connection with the above mentioned criminal case and they had submitted an application for post-arrest bail before the learned trial Court. During the pendency of that application for bail the complainant of this case as well as the injured victim, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein respectively, had not only sworn affidavits but had also appeared before the learned trial Court on 16-12-2002 maintaining that they had entered into a compromise with the petitioners, the petitioners had been forgiven by them in the name of Almighty Allah, they had no objection to grant of bail to the petitioners and they certified and verified the contents of the affidavits submitted by them. The affidavits submitted by respondents Nos.2 and 3 before the learned trial Court, copies whereof have been appended with this petition as Annexures B and C respectively, show that the compromise arrived at between the patties was not confined or restricted to the matter of bail only but the same pertained to the entire case and the complainant as well as the injured victim had undertaken to get the petitioners acquitted from the learned trial Court when that stage was to arrive. It was in these circumstances that the petitioners had been admitted to post-arrest bail by the learned trial Court on 16-12-2002 while acting upon the said compromise entered into between the parties. The law is now quite well-settled that a compromise in a criminal case cannot be allowed to be resiled from if it has already beer acted upon reference in this regard may, be made to the cases of Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah v. Syed Sabir Hussain Shah and 2 others 1998 SCMR 466; Barish Ali and 2 others v. Chaudhry Mushtaq Ahmad, Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur, District Okara and 6 others 2002 YLR 1016; Mukhtar Ahmad and 3 others v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 1107; Syed Sabir Hussain Shah and another v. Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah and another 1995 MLD 563. It may be added here that this legal principle is not of recent origin and this was always the law in the Indian Sub-Continent. A reference in this regard may be made to the. Cases of Kumarasami Chetty v. Kuppusami Chetty and others AIR 1919 Mad. 879(2); Ram Richpal v. Mata Din and another .AIR 1925 Lah. 159; Jhangtoo Barai and another v. Emperor AIR 1930 All. 409; Mt. Rmbai w/o Bahadursingh v. Mst. Chandra Kumari Devi AIR 1940 Nag. 181; Godfrey Meeus v. Simon Dular AIR 1950 Nag. 91 and Prithvi Bhagat and another v. Birju Sada AIR 1962 Pat. 316.

3. For what has been observed above I have entertained no manner of doubt that the compromise arrived at between the parties at the stage of the petitioners' bail still ensures to the benefit of the petitioners and respondents Nos.2 and 3 cannot be allowed to resile from the same. Both the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners are compoundable. In this view of the matter this petition is allowed and the above mentioned criminal case against the petitioners is quashed with the effect of the petitioners' acquittal on the basis of a compromise.

Top of Form

Like

Bottom of Form

CommentShare

21 21

3 shares