MLD 2007

2007 PLP 1269 (MLD)

THE STATE — Applicant Versus IRFANULLAH QAZI — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
Criminal Suo Motu Revision No.136 of 2005, decided on 4th May, 2007.
Honorable Judges
Mushir Alam, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2007 PLP 1269 (MLD)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members Mushir Alam, J
Parties THE STATE — Applicant Versus IRFANULLAH QAZI — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1269 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1269 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Mushir Alam, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1269 (MLD) (THE STATE — Applicant Versus IRFANULLAH QAZI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Shahadat Awan for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss.345 & 439

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.452

Compounding of offence

Suo motu revision

Offence under the F.I.R. had since been compounded and the matter had been disposed of by the Trial Court

Considering that offence under S.452, P.P.C. was not compoundable, show-cause notice was issued to complainant and to accused as to why order to the extent of allowing compounding of the offence under S.452, P.P.C. should not be recalled

Parties being neighbours, were living harmoniously and behaving properly, good sense prevailed and they had patched up their differences and decided to live in peace and harmony

When heinous crimes like murder were allowed to be compounded, present crime under S.452, P.P.C. i.e. trespass to cause hurt and assault, was rendered secondary

If Court would remand the matter for decision on merits, there was no likelihood to record conviction or otherwise

Acceptance of compromise was in the larger interest of two neighbours for the benefit of congenial neighbour-hood environment--Notice issued was discharged in circumstances. Hussain Bux v. State PLD 2003 Kar. 127 rel. Arshad Lodhi A.A.-G. for the State.

Judgment & Decree

MUSHIR ALAM, J.

It appears that when the application for return of the surety was moved by the Midhat Azeem Kidwai this Court noted that the offence under the F.I.R. has since been compounded and the matter has been disposed of by the learned Trial Court. It was noted that the offence under section 452, P.P.C. is not compoundable; show-cause notice was issued to the complainant and to the accused as to why order, dated 9-2-2004 to the extent of allowing compounding of the offence under section 452, P.P.C. may not be recalled. Notice has been served. Complainant and accused are present in Court. Mr. Shahadat Awan learned counsel contends that since the parties are neighbours and living harmoniously and behaving properly, therefore, good sense prevailed and they have patched up their differences and decided to live in peace and harmony. It was stated that even in case where heinous crimes like murder are allowed to be compounded present crime under section 452, P.P.C. i.e. trespass to cause hurt and assault, is rendered secondary. It is urged that even if this Court remands the matter for decision on merits there is no likelihood to record conviction or otherwise. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Hussain Bux v. State (PLD 2003 Karachi 127). Mr. Arshad Lodhi learned A.A.-G. concedes to the position as explained above in the case of Hussain Bux (supra) wherein it was ruled that where main offence is allowed to be compounded then the persons who are convicted on account of being merely members of unlawful assembly are also entitled for concession of compromise otherwise it would not be in consonance with the principles of justice, in accordance with the injunctions of Islam. In view of the above, it may be observed that since the acceptance of the compromise in the larger interest of two neighbours persons for the benefit of congenial neighbourhood environment. Following principles laid down by the division bench is recorded above. The notice issued on 9-8-2005 is discharged. Revision stands disposed of. H.B.T./S-31/K Order accordingly.