' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- The petitioner has sought review of the judgment, dated 27-4-2004 whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The prime contention of Dr. Babar Awan, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner is that compounding of offence is guaranteed by all means in the Injunction of Islam as laid down in Holy Qur'an and Sunnah which aspect of the matter has not been considered in the judgment impugned. In order to substantiate his esteemed view Dr. Babar Awan, learned Advocate Supreme Court argued that compounding of offences and the compromise is guaranteed in the Holy Qur'an between fighting factions of the society as enumerated in Surah Al-Nisa Verse 114 as well as in Surah Al-Hujrat Verse 1079.
3. We have examined the prime contention of learned Advocate Supreme Court as mentioned hereinabove. The question which needs determination would be as to whether parties can be allowed to compound the offences which are not compoundable by virtue of the provisions as contemplated in section 345, Cr.P.C. Especially in view of the specific bar as mentioned in subsection (7) of section 345, Cr.P.C. Which has been dilated upon and decided vide judgment impugned relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- "(3) Heard Dr. Babar Awan, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of appellant and learned Advocate-General for the State. The pivotal question which needs determination would be as to whether parties can allowed to compound the offences which are not compoundable by virtue of the provisions as contemplated in section 345, Cr.P.C. Especially in view of the specific bar as mentioned in subsection (7) of section 345, Cr.P.C. There is no denying the fact that section 365-A, P.P.C. Read with section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is not compoundable. The provisions as contained in section 345(7), Cr.P.C. Have been couched in such a plain and simple language that there is hardly any scope for any interpretation except that a non-compoundable offence cannot be made compoundable by this Court for the simple reason that no amendment, deletion, insertion or addition could be made by this Court and it could only be done by the Legislature as this aspect of the matter falls in its exclusive domain of jurisdiction. The provisions as contained in section 345, Cr.P.C. Cannot be stretched too far by including the non-compoundable offence therein under the garb of humanitarian grounds or any other 'extraneous consideration. The offences committed by the appellant are not of grave and alarming nature but the same are against the society as a whole and cannot be permitted to compound by any individual on any score whatsoever. It may be noted that tabulation of the offences as made under section 345, Cr.P.C. Being unambiguous remove all doubts uncertainty and must be taken as complete and comprehensive guide for compounding the offences. The judicial consensus seems to be that "the Legislature has laid down in this section the test for determining the classes of offences which concern individuals only as distinguished from those which have reference to the interests of the State and Courts of law cannot go beyond that test and substitute for it one of their own. It is against public policy to compound a non-compoundable offence, keeping in view the state of facts existing on the date of application to compound. No offences shall be compounded except where provisions of section 345, Cr.P.C. Are satisfied as to all matters mentioned in the section."
(emphasis provided)
(4) The above judicial consensus is based on the following authorities:-- ' Dalsukharan Hargovandas v. Charles Debretton 28 Bom. 326; Meenakhshi Sundarammal v.
Subramania Ayyar AIR 1955 Mad. 369; Aqkshoy Singh v. Rameshwar Bagdi AIR 1917 Cal. 705; Mt. Rani v. Mt. Jaiwanti AIR 1925 Nag. 395; Crown v. Muhammad Hussain PLD 1950 Lah. 86; Gurunarayan Das and others AIR 1948 Pat. 58; Agha Nazarali Sultan Muhammad v. Emperor AIR 1941 Sindh 186; Emperor v. Jarnally and others AIR 1925 Lah. 464; Ghulam Rasool v. State 1999 M LD 3085; Muhammad Asif v. State 1991 M LD 1026; Noor Muhammad alias Noora v. State 1992 SCM R 2079; Muhammad Nazir alias Jeera v. State PLD 2001 Lah. 212; Muhammad Anwar v. State 1986 M LD 1111; Nawab-ul-Hassan v. State 2003 SCM R 658 and Yousaf Ali v. State 2002 SCM R 1885."
4. If petitioner is grieved from the provisions enunciated in section 345, Cr.P.C. Then its vires should have been challenged being repugnant to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah as stressed by the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner which cannot be decided while deciding this review petition which being meritless is dismissed and leave refused.