Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice S. Ali Aslam JaffriAijaz Shaikh
2009 Y L R 103
2009 Y L R 103
[Karachi]
Before S. Ali Aslam Jaffri, J
GHULAM MUHAMMAD---Applicant
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Revision Applications Nos.81 82, 132 Criminal Appeals Nos. 10, 11, 15 of 2004, decided on 1st March, 2005.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 420, 468 & 506(2)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345---Compounding of offence---Ingredients of Ss.468 & 506/2, P.P.C. were lacking in the case and there remained only S.420, P.P.C. under which conviction could be maintained---Applicants were acquitted of the charge under Ss.468 & 506(2), P. P. C.---Parties were stated to have compounded the offence under S.420, P.P.C. and in that respect parties had filed applications under S.345(2), (6), Cr.P.C.--State Counsel had no objection if such permission was accorded and compromise was accepted---Complainant had been fully compensated and in the interest of good relations in future between the parties and the fact that they were known to each other for last many years and resided in the same locality; and that compromise would save them from any further litigation---Permission was accorded for the compromise by granting application under S. 345(2), Cr.P.C. ---Permission to compound the offence having been accorded and there appeared to be no legal impediment in allowing that compromise, which the parties appeared to have entered into with their free will and consent, compromise was accepted and applicants/ accused persons were acquitted of the charge under S. 420, P.P.C.
Aijaz Shaikh for Applicant (in Criminal Revision Applications Nos.81 of 82 of 2004).
Farooq Ali Khan Babar for Applicant (in Criminal Revision Application No. 132 of 2004).
Rasheed Qureshi Asst. A.G. for the State.
Complainant present in person.
JUDGMENT
S. ALI ASLAM JAFFRI, J.---By this single order I would like to dispose of these three criminal revision applications which arise out of a common judgment, dated 15-6-2004 in Criminal Appeals Nos.10, 11 and 15 of 2004 which were filed against the judgment passed by learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-VII Hyderabad (Miss. Shagufta A. Kaka) convicting the three appellants while finding them guilty of offences under sections 420, 468 and 506/2 P.P.C.
The appeals against the said order were dismissed by the learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge Hyderabad (Syed Qurban Ali Shah Lakyari) while maintaining the conviction awarded to the appellants by the learned trial Court.
During hearing of all these revision applications at katcha peshi stage the parties viz. the complainant and the accused, stated that they have entered into a compromise as the accused have compensated the complainant by returning the amount claimed by him, in Court today hence the complainant wants to compound the offences. In order to examine whether compromise could be effected in view of the fact that offences under sections 468 and 506(2) are not compoundable, I have examined the F.I.R., the judgments passed by the two Courts below as well as statements of the witnesses with the able assistance of learned counsel for the applicants and learned Addl. A.-G., I find myself persuaded to subscribe to the view expressed by the learned counsel for the applicants and learned Addl. A.-G that ingredients of sections 468 and 506(2) are lacking in this case, hence there remains only section 420 P.P.C. in which conviction can be maintained, as such the applicants are acquitted of the charge under sections 468 and 506(2) P.P.C.
The parties stated to have compounded the offence under section 420 P.P.C. and have filed such applications in each revision application under sections 345(2) and 345(6) Cr.P.C. seeking permission to compound the offence and the actual compromise made by them.
Learned Addl. A. -G has no objection if such permission is accorded and compromise is accepted. I find that complainant has been fully compensated and in the interest of good relations in future between the parties and the fact that they are known to each other for last many years and reside in the same locality and this compromise shall save them from any further litigation, I accord permission for the compromise by granting application under section 345(2) Cr.P.C.
Since permission to compound the offence has been accorded and since there appears to be no legal impediment in allowing this compromise which the parties appear to have entered with their free-will and consent, hence this compromise is accepted. Resultantly, applicants/accused are acquitted of the charge under section 420, P.P.C. as well. They are on bail, their bail bond stands cancelled and surety discharged.
H.B.T./G-34/K Application allowed.