' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dated 24-1-2003, passed in Writ Petition No,363 of 2003.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing trial in a case F.I.R. No,58 of 2001, lodged under sections 324/452, P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar Muzaffargarh. After registration of the crime, the petitioner filed an application for grant of pre-arrest bail, which was pending before the Court concerned. During the pendency of the bail application, it is alleged that the compromise was effected between the parties and the affidavits of the P.Ws. Were filed wherein they admitted to have compromised the matter on the intervention of the elders of the area and that they had no objection for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Subsequently, the bail application was granted.
3. After completion of the investigation, report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was filed before the trial Court whereas petitioner approached the Court by filing an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. For his acquittal, mainly, on the ground that during pendency of the bail application, parties have compromised the matter and that the compromise is binding on the complainant and the injured. The trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner on 20-6-2004. The petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above order of the trial Court, filed revision petition, which was also dismissed. Subsequently, he approached the learned High Court through a writ petition which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 24-1-2003. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who, inter alia, contended that the Court below had not considered the case in its proper perspective and that the affidavits filed by the P.Ws. As well as the injured to this effect have not been considered; that the compromise once effected is binding on the parties and the petitioner is entitled to acquittal under section 249-A, C.P.C.
5. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully scanned the record available. Admittedly the petitioner was granted bail solely on the ground that the complainant party including injured filed affidavits in favor of the petitioner; that he may be released on bail. Subsequently, after completion of the investigation, police submitted charge- sheet against him before the trial Court where the case is pending for trial. The trial Court and the learned High Court rightly rejected the application of the petitioner.
6. The impugned judgment is well-reasoned and is entirely in accordance with the law, which does not call for any interference by this Court. However, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment is reproduced below:--- "(3) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length; also have gone through the impugned order as also the contents of this petition. Under subsection (2) of section 345, Cr.P.C.
The offences mentioned in the first two columns given in the said section may, with the permission of the Court before whom any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column given thereunder. It is an admitted position that compromises were effected during the pendency of petition for bail before arrest, when the prosecution of the offences was not pending before the learned trial Court. Such a compromise cannot be made basis for acquittal of the petitioner as under section 345(2), Cr.P.C. It is the trial Court which has to satisfy itself and grant permission to compound the offence being tried by it. I find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders and maintain the same. The case- law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case."
7. For the facts, circumstances and reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the petition is without merit and substance, which is hereby dismissed and leave declined.