1989 P Cr (PLP)

Abdur Rashid Sheikh for Petitioners. Wajahat Hussain for the State. Date of hearing: 26th February, 1989. The petitioners were tried for an offence under section 325/34, P.P.C. by Mr. Ahmad Yar Khalid, Magistrate First Class Vehari, who found them guilty of the said offence and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for one year each vide his judgment dated 29‑12‑1975. The petitioners' appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari on 4‑7‑1977. Thereafter, the present revision petition was admitted to regular hearing on 9‑8‑1977 and the petitioners' sentence was suspended and they were allowed bail.

2. The petitioners have filed an application (Criminal Miscellaneous No, 21/M of 1989), saying that they have arrived at a compromise with the complainant as well as the injured P.Ws. and that the petitioners may be allowed to compound the offence and be acquitted of the charge against them. The complainant Wahab and 'the two injured witnesses namely Baqir and Ghulam Sarwar are also present in the Court and have admitted the factum of compromise with the petitioners. The compromise deed has been annexed to the petition as Annexure `A/1' and the supporting affidavits of Wahab, maker of the F.I.R., Ghulam Sarwar and Muhammad Baqir, as Annexures 1/2, A/3 and A/4.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the offence under section 325 of the P.P.C. is compoundable under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 345 of the Cr.P.C. with the permission of the Court. He further submits that the offence can be compounded not only during the pendency of the trial but even after the conviction and the High Court is competent to allow composition of the offence in exercise of its revisional powers by virtue of subsection (5‑A) of section 345 of the Cr.P.C. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has frankly conceded the correctness of the legal position as explained by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. It is stated that the petitioners and the complainant party are closely related and have voluntarily entered into a compromise to put to an end to their litigation, for leading a peaceful and harmonious life in their village. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on cases of Abdur Rauf v. The State 1983 S C M R 408 and Abdul Haq and others v. The State 1979 S C M R 507 to contend that the petitioners were entitled to acquittal after the acceptance of compromise between the parties. In the first mentioned case grievous hurt was caused by the convict who was convicted under section 326 of the P.P.C. The Supreme Court was pleased to allow leave to appeal on the basis of the written compromise submitted by the parties, converted the petition into an appeal, allowed the same and acquitted the accused persons. The second case also relates to grievous hurt caused by a blunt weapon in which the compromise was accepted by the Supreme Court and the convict was acquitted.

5. In this view of the matter, I accept the compromise, permit the parties to compound the offence, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioners and acquit them on the basis of compromise. The petitioners are already on bail: Their bail bonds and the surety bonds shall stand discharged. S.A./M‑1475/L Compromise accepted.