2005 PLP 1199 (YLR)

Heard Mr. S. Mehmood Alam Rizvi Advocate for the applicants, Miss Mehmooda Qasim Advocate for the respondent No.1, Muhammad Younus, and Mr. Mumtaz Ali Khan Deshmukh Advocate for the State. The case of the applicants/accused is that after registration of F.I.R. pertaining to the case in hand, applicants/accused were arrested and ultimately the complainant/injured filed an affidavit in the Court, while his bail application was being heard, wherein he stated that he had reached a compromise with the applicants/ accused outside the Court at the office of Union Council-7, Baldia Town, Karachi, and put their respective signatures on such compromise deed in presence of Nazim and Naib Nazim of UC-7, Baldia Town, Karachi West; it is further contended that an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. was filed in the said case before the learned trial Court with a prayer to dispose of the case on the basis of such compromise said to have been entered into by the parties; applicants/accused were admitted to bail by the learned trial Court on the basis of such facts viz; complainant himself appeared and filed his own affidavit stating therein that the matter had been compromised and that he had forgiven the accused Being his nephews but learned trial Court dismissed the said application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.; the applicants/accused filed Cr. Rev. Application No.18 of 2003 before the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi West which also stands dismissed vide impugned order dated 2-9-2003, with observations On perusal of the case-law cited by applicants/accused it is clear that the compromise referred to herein was on certain terms and conditions regarding payment of compensation, and it is yet to be determined by the learned trial Court as to whether or not said terms and conditions of the compromise have been fully satisfied and further that the learned trial Court has yet to satisfy itself to that effect . Any compromise outside the Court is of no value unless it has been sanctioned by a Court as envisaged in Column No.3 of section 345(2), Cr.P.C., and such a sanction is to be based on sound and reasonable discretion and not as a matter of course. Courts of law have to consider all the attending circumstances of the case and then to decide whether, in the given situation, it should or should not grant permission for compounding of the offence. Reference could be made to Muhammad Nazeer v. The State PLD 2001 Lah. 212 and Rana Awais and others v. S.H.O. Police Station, People s Colony Faisalabad and others 2001 PCr.LJ 241 (Lahore). Learned counsel for the applicants/accused cited Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah v. Syed Sabir Hussain Shah and others 1998 SCMR 466; with utmost respects and regards, it is submitted that the facts and circumstances of the said reported case are different from those of the case in hand, inasmuch as learned trial Court had recorded the statement of the complainant/ injured while hearing the bail application filed before it, in the said reported case, and had fully satisfied itself that the compromise had been genuinely entered into by the parties; in this case, the learned trial Court has yet to arrive at such a conclusion while entertaining such proceedings exactly in accordance with law, and the fact that the compromise was arrived at in presence of Nazim and Naib Nazim in Union Council office would be immaterial for the purpose of satisfaction of the trial Court; it has to arrive at a conclusion that the compromise is genuinely entered into by the parties. Under the circumstances, learned Courts below rightly dismissed the application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. filed by applicants/accused; this criminal miscellaneous application has no force therein and, therefore, was dismissed by short order dated 16-2-2004. The above are the reasons for such a short order. N.H.Q./M-196/K Petition dismissed.