1999 P Cr (PLP)

2. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as there is nothing on the file to suggest, even remotely, that the compromise entered into between the petitioner and the accused‑respondents was either collusive or fraudulent. In point of fact the petitioner's statement in respect of compromise deed was recorded by the Sessions Judge, Lakki Marwat (Mr. Abdul Sattar Khan) on 16‑4‑1998, which is reproduced hereunder:‑‑ "Joint statement of parents of Wilayat Shah on oath‑‑ Stated that we have patched the matter with the petitioners out of the Court, according to the Riwaj of the Illaqa. We have waived our right of Oisas and Divvat and have got no objection on the confirmation of ad interim tire‑arrest bail already granted to them. The compromise deed Exh.P.A. bears our thumb‑impressions correctly."

3. In accordance with the statement of the petitioner/complainant, the father of the deceased, and his wife, the mother of the deceased, the Sessions Judge recorded the judgment on 16‑4‑1998 vide which, the ad interim pre‑arrest bail granted to the accused/respondents was confirmed‑ The relevant portion of the said order is as under:‑‑ "The parties have alleged compromise. Parents of the deceased present and have confirmed the factum of compromise, so their statement recorded. According to them they have pardoned the accused in the name of Almighty Allah and have waived their right of Qisas and Diyyat both against the petitioners. Accordingly in view of compromise between the parties, the present petition is accepted and earlier order of ad interim pre‑arrest bail, dated 3‑3‑1998 is hereby confirmed."

4. In the circumstances, this petition is not only frivolous but is without any substance and is accordingly dismissed in limine. If any authority is needed I am supported by a case Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah v. Syed Sabir Hussain Shah reported as 1998 SCMR 466 wherein it was held:‑‑ S. 336/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑ Complainant at the time of disposal of pre‑arrest bail application of accused had made a statement before the Sessions Court that he had received a sum of Rs.4,000 from the accused as compensation for settlement of the case, in consequence whereof interim pre‑arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed‑‑‑Sessions Judge, however, on taking cognizance of the case refused to acquit the accused on the basis of said statement of the complainant and High Court in revision directed Sessions Court to acquit the accused in the case as and when hearing took place‑‑‑Order of High Court was found to be just and proper in circumstances‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused accordingly, " It was further held:‑‑ "It may be true that while accepting revision application, the learned Judge in Chambers should have directed the learned Sessions Judge to dispose of the case in accordance with law but it is submitted before us that the learned Sessions Judge has already acquitted the accused in the case which has not been challenged by the petitioner. Be that as it may, after reading the statement of the petitioner recorded by the learned Additional Session Judge while disposing of the pre‑arrest bail application of respondents, we are in no doubt that a sum of Rs.4,000 was received by the petitioner as compensation for settlement of the case and as such it is not a fit case in which leave should be granted. The order of the learned Judge in Chamber is a just and proper order in the circumstances of the case and no case is made out for interference with this order. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused." N.H.Q./249/P Petition dismissed.