1992 PLP 1505 (SCMR)

Z. Mahfooz Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in Criminal Appeal &o.5/P of 1991). Date of hearing: 1st April, 1992. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.‑‑‑In this case the unfortunate contest is between the appellant who is the step‑sister of the respondent No.l. Her complaint is that she and her other sisters were defrauded by the respondent who had attempted to deprive them of their property by means of forgery, fraud and misappropriation. However, his conduct having been detected, he was prosecuted but was acquitted on technical grounds. The State challenged the acquitter before the High Court but without any success. Now (by leave to appeal of this Court) both these appeals, one by the aforementioned sister and other by the State, are directed against the acquittal of the respondent in a case under sections 409, 420, 468, P.P.C. The appellant (the sister of respondent No.l) is so bitter against him perhaps on. account of his conduct that she almost took over the conduct of the appeal and arguments from her counsel and started arguing herself. Her main grievance was that the respondent who himself is a petition‑writer and works in the Courts premises, took undue advantage of his position and committed the offences for which he was charged. Not only this she narrated woeful tale of his design to torture not only the appellant but her other sisters as well as their real brother who all are step‑brother and sisters of the respondents by launching several other cases one of which is for damages regarding the same case in which he was acquitted perhaps for malicious prosecution. She was, therefore, adamant that this Court should set aside the acquittal and send the respondent (her brother) behind the bars. Her real brother who was also present in Court supported her stating that he having purchased a property from the sons of the respondent, litigation has also been started from the respondent's side for the annulment of that sale. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that sentimental attack by the appellant's side could not dilute the effect of the judgments of acquittal if they otherwise could not be set aside on the touchstone of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamraz Khan P L D 1985 SC

11. Learned Advocate‑General who appeared in State appeal, however, as his position demanded, adopted a moderate and more humane approach to this case. According to him, the appellant/lady would not be benefited if the respondent is convicted and is imprisoned. May be that by itself would not remove their grievance with regard to the property. Taking cue from the approach of the learned Advocate‑General both the learned counsel for the lady appellant as well as for the respondent, entered into meaningful discussion and with the help of the Court reached an amicable settlement. They submitted it in writing before the Court with the request for the disposal of these appeals in accordance therewith. It is recorded as under:‑‑ "We undertake that all criminal cases instituted/initiated by the respondent Muqaddar Shah or at his instance against the appellant and, or her sisters and brothers/husband and his relations shall be withdrawn by S. Muqaddar Shah forthwith. The suit filed by Muqaddar Shah for damages against the appellant will be withdrawn by him before or at the next date of hearing of the case. The suit. Filed in consequence of criminal case against him under section 419/420/408, P.P.C. shall also be withdrawn which is for damages. 1‑4‑1992 (Sd.) (Sd.) (Mian Shakirullah Jan) (Z. Mahfuz Khan) A.O.R for appellant. A.O.R. for respondent. 1‑4‑1992." As is apparent the agreement is signed by both the learned counsel for the parties. There is no reason not to accept it. We, accordingly, in order to create amity between the parties who are closely related to each other dispose of these appeals as a result and in terms of the agreement afore-recorded with no order as to costs. M.B.A./J‑91/S Order accordingly.