SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.--- The petitioners have called in question order of the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh dated 28-4-2004, whereby the learned Sessions Judge refused to accept application of the petitioners filed under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. And decided to proceed with the trial.
2. The brief facts leading to the impugned order and thereafter filing of the instant petition are that F.I.R.No,62 of 1992 was registered on 12-5-1992 under sections 302, 452, 354-A, 337-A, 148 and 149, P.P.C. At Police Station Shehr Sultan, District Muzaffargarh. The said F.I.R. Was registered at the instance of complainant Mst. Parveen Ijaz. One Abbas Haider son of Ijaz Hussain was murdered in the occurrence who was survived by Legal Heirs namely, Zafar Haider (B), Ilyas Haider (B), Musarrat Ijaz (S), Nusrat Ijaz (S), Nighat Ijaz (S) and Farhat Ijaz(S). The names of the accused are (1) Shah Muhammad, (2) Sajid Mehmood (3) Ashraf Riaz, (4) Muhammad Khan, (5) Muhammad Arshad, (6)
Ashfaq Ahmad (all petitioners in the present petition), (7) Ch. Muhammad Jamil, (8) Zafar Iqbal, (9)
Dilawar Hussain, (10) Tasadduq Hussain, (11) Iftikhar Hussain, (12) Altaf and (13) Mian Iqbal Hussain, total number of accused is 13.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that at bail stage parties entered into a compromise. All the legal heirs sworn affidavits to give legal effect to the said compromise. On the basis of above mentioned compromise an application was moved on behalf of the petitioners under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Which was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 3-7-2003. A criminal revision filed in this Court was also dismissed. Against order of this Court Criminal Petition No,611/L of 2003 was filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan disposed of the petition on 4-9-2003 with the following direction:-- "Before proceeding with the trial of the case, the trial Court shall first proceed to record evidence of the parties about the plea raised by the petitioners about the compromise and record findings with regard thereof."
' In pursuance of the above order of the learned apex Court, the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh gave his finding on point of compromise on 4-9-2003 which has been impugned before this Court through the present writ petition/criminal revision.
4. The learned counsel at the very outset requested that he may be allowed to file a criminal revision instead of present writ petition against the impugned order. Without allowing him to file another criminal revision by withdrawing present petition, this petition is converted into criminal revision. The reasons are that this murder case relates to the year 1992 and the present petition was filed on 11-5-2004, two years have already passed yet the matter is pending in this Court. The trial is in limbo since 1992; 14 years have already passed. It may be pertinent to point out, in the overall circumstances of this case, that complainant Mst. Parveen Akhtar was wedded with one Ijaz Hussain who was a Magistrate. He left a considerable property, for the same reasons, thecomplainant entered into second marriage with Mumtaz Hussain, brother of her previous husband, Ijaz Hussain, second husband also died, after this death, his brothers Iqbal Hussain, Iftikhar Hussain and Altaf Hussain developed differences with the complainant of the F.I.R. Over cash of Rs,1,80,00,000 deposited in the bank and agricultural property, etc. These facts are mentioned in the F.I.R. Itself which was registered on orders of then Mr. Justice Sheikh Khizar Hayat, former Judge of this Court. All the petitioners/accused in the F.I.R. Are police officials. Prima facie, it seems, the background of this case and police officers involved, in this case directly or indirectly, are reasons that this case is not being allowed to move forward towards its natural conclusion.
After making above observation, I proceed to decide the present petition.
5. Following the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh passed the impugned order on 28-4-2004. The concluding part of his order is as follows:-- "Upshot of above discussion is that compromise (Exh.DK) was executed between Mst. Parveen Akhtar, Shah Muhammad and Sajid Masood, likewise, affidavits (Exh.DD) and Exh.DH) were sworn by the deponents being legal heirs of deceased. However, as compromise (Exh.DK) was executed between one of the legal heirs i,e, Parveen Akhtar and accused/petitioner while rest of legal heirs were not privy to the said compromise therefore, no premium can be granted to the accused/petitioner prior to conclusion of trial."
The above finding of the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh clearly points out that he did not accept that'a compromise was effected between the accused persons and all legal heirs, that is why, he mentioned that "no premium can be granted to the accused/petitioners prior to conclusion of trial".
6. The emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused is that the learned Sessions Judge accepted/believed validity of the compromise between the petitioners/accused and all legal heirs, yet the learned Sessions Judge did not accept the application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. The belief/contention of the, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused is based on para.14, which reads as under:- "Epitome of above discussion is that application made on behalf of accused/petitioners for verification of compromise is accepted while application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C,.Read with section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby dismissed subject to observations made by this Court in para. 13 of the order, according to which legal implications for compromise shall be settled at the time of conclusion of trial."
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused has focused all his attention and arguments on first three lines of para. 14 of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh "epitome of above discussion is that application made on behalf of accused/petitioners for verification of compromise is accepted while application under section 265-K is hereby dismissed." The words "application made on behalf of cussed/petitioners for verification of compromise is accepted", means application to examine or decide whether a genuine compromise was effected between the accused persons and legal heirs of the deceased or not. These words were not used by the learned Sessions Judge to mean that application of the petitioners/accused was"accepted"/allowed in the sense.That plea of valid and genuine compromise was believed or accepted by him. Otherwise, the learned Sessions Judge could not have expressed himself in the words which immediately followed word "accepted" stating "that application under section 265 read with section 345, Cr.P.C. Is hereby dismissed". The learned Sessions Judge further noted in para. 14 that his finding in para.14 is subject to observation made by him in para. 13 of the order. The observations made in para. 13 is "however, as compromise (Exgh.DK) was executed between one of the legal heirs Mst. Parveen Akhtar and accused/petitioners while rest legal heirs were not privy to the said compromise, no premium can be granted to the accused/petitioner' prior to conclusion of the trial". Thus, I have no doubt in my mind that though para. 14 of the impugned order is not appropriately worded but it means that the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh did not accept the compromise between the parties and he C intended to proceed with the trial. The case-law eluded to by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as compromise has not been believed/accepted in the present case or it was accepted only to the extent of between accused/petitioners and one legal heir only.
8. The order of the learned Sessions Judge, Muzafffargarh was called in question by filing the present writ petition in the year 2004, as already stated above. Vide order of this Court dated 9-6- 2004 proceedings before the trial Court were also suspended, this is the reason, I persuaded the learned counsel for the parties to argue this case today as already and unnecessarily the adjudication has been delayed in the murder case relating to year 1992.
9. In view of the above discussion and my observations, this petition is dismissed. The learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.