1968 P Cr (PLP)

distinguished.. Q. M. Saleem for Petitioners Fazal Hussain Shamsi for A: G. for the State. Iftikhar Ahmad for Respondent. This is a revision petition against the order dated 3‑6‑1967 of Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, by the petitioners who have been accused of an offence under section 325, P. P. C. and are being tried by a local Magistrate. On 2‑2‑1965 when the case was pending before the Magistrate an application for permission to compound the case was drafted which was signed by the petitioners and one of the two injured persons, namely, Muhammad Jahangir. Another application purporting to be signed by Muhammad Jahangir, one of .the two injured persons, was apparently drafted on the same day whereby permission to arrive at a compromise was sought. Neither of the two documents was submitted to the Magistrate for several months and on the 13th of November 1965 these two documents were submitted to the Magistrate apparently for the purpose of getting his permission to compound the case. From the order of the learned Magistrate it transpires that he noticed the circumstances that only one of the two injured persons has signed these documents and that even that injured person namely Muhammad Jahangir .was not prepared to abide by the compromise. The learned Magistrate, therefore, rejected the application submitted by the petitioners for permission to com pound the case. The petitioners preferred a revision petition against the order dated 11‑12‑1965 of the learned Magistrate whereby the aforesaid application submitted by the petitioners was 'rejected by him, to the Sessions Court and Mr. Ghulam Hussain, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore by his order dated 3‑6‑1967 dismissed the revision petition. The petitioners have now come up in revision to this Court against the above‑mentioned orders.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the application for compounding the case should not have been rejected by the Magistrate inasmuch as one of the injured persons was a party to the execution of the documents purport ing to be the compromise‑deed and the application for seeking permission to compound the case. If indeed these applica tions had been presented to the ‑ Magistrate by the two injured persons for compounding the case, then apparently the permission to compound the case should have been given by the Magistrate but it transpires from the order of the Magistrate that even one of the injured persons who had signed these documents had resiled from the compromise before the Magistrate, which means that be was not seeking the permission of the Court to compound the case. The question whether the case could be compounded qua the injured person who had not signed'' any of these documents simply does not arise, but even the case against the petitioners so far as the injuries of Jahangir are ‑ concerned could not be compounded, in the circumstances. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that since no separate statement of Jahangir to the effect that he was resiling from the compromise contemplated, was recorded by the Magistrate, we cannot proceed on the basis that Muhammad Jahangir had indeed resiled from the compromise. I do not think that it was really necessary for the Magistrate to record a separate statement of Muhammad Jahangir to the effect that he did not abide by the contemplated compromise when Jahangir in fact, was present before the Magistrate and had, when this matter was being examined by the Magistrate, taken up the position that he did not abide by the compromise presented by the accused persons before the Magistrate. This revision petition was admitted by my learned brother Mr. Justice Dorab Patel on 2‑11‑1967. The first paragraph of the admitting note is relevant for the purposes of this order:‑ "The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding before the Magistrate was settled by a compromise signed by both parties. The courts below refused to register the compromise on the grounds that the complainant had resiled from the compromise. The learned counsel submits that the complainant has not resiled from the compromise and is presumably ready and willing to abide by it. Admit‑Notice." From the above mentioned admitting note it would seem that while contending that the complainant had not resiled, the learned counsel was also thinking that the complainant would be ready and willing to abide by the compromise. On an application made by Jahangir to be impleaded as a party Mr. Justice Dorab Patel allowed him to be made a party. Mr. Muhammad Jahangir is present today and I have asked him if he had appeared before the Magistrate when the order dated 11‑12‑1965 was passed by him. He states that he was present on that day and that he had told the Court that he did not want any permission to compound the case. It appears to me, therefore, that the observation of the Magistrate that Muhammad Jahangir has resiled from the compromise was based on a statement to that effect made by Muhammad Jahangir to the Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited before me 1919 Madras 879, Singheshwar Prasad v: All Hasan (A I R 1929 Pat. 512) and Muhammad and others v. Emperor (A I R 1931 Lab. 402), I am unable to see what bearing these judgments have on the facts of the present case. They arise out of a totally different set of circumstances. None of them lays down that after signing an application for permission to compound a case falling under subsection (2) of section 345 of Cr. P: C., if a hurt person or one of the hurt persons resile from the contemplated compromise when such application for permission is put before the Magistrate by the accused party, the permission to compound such a case should be allowed. Singheshwar Prasad v. Ali Hasan, relates to a case where the accused persons were put on their triad for offences under sections 355, 323 and 147, P. P. C. and the Court proceeded on the basis that in case where the offences were compoundable without the permission of the Court if one of the parties to a compromise subsequently resiled from it, inquiry into the factum of a compromise having been arrived at, should be made. This judgment does not. at all concern itself with a case where the offences for which the accused has to be tried are compoundable only with the permission of the Court. Similarly Muhammad and others v. Emperor does not concern itself with a case where the compounding can be done only with the permission of the Court.

3. The result is that I see no force in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.