1. It appears that when the application for return of the surety was moved by Midhat Azeem Kidwai this Court noted that the offence under the FIR has since been compounded and the matter has been disposed of by the learned trial Court. It was noted that the offence under Section 452 PPC is not compoundable; show-cause notice was issued to the complainant and to the accused as to why order dated 9.2.2004 to the extent of allowing compounding of the offence under Section 452 PPC may not be recalled.
2. Notice has been served. Complainant and accused are present in Court.
3. Mr. Shahadat Awan learned counsel contends that since the parties are neighbours and living harmoniously and behaving properly, therefore good sense prevailed and they have patched up their differences and decided to live in peace and harmony. It was stated that even in case where heinous crimes like murder are allowed to be compounded present crime under Section 452 PPC i.e. trespass to cause hurt and assault, is rendered secondary. It is urged that even if this Court remands the matter for decision on merits there is no likelihood to record conviction or otherwise.
4. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Hussain Bux vs. State (PLD 2003 Karachi 127).
5. Mr. Arshad Lodhi learned A.A.G. concedes to the position as explained above in the case of Hussain Bux (supra) wherein it was ruled that where main offence is allowed to be compounded then the persons who are convicted on account of being merely members of unlawful assembly are also entitled for concession of compromise otherwise it would not be in consonance with the principles of justice, in accordance with the injunctions of Islam. In view of the above, it may be observed that since the acceptance of the compromise in the larger interest of two neighbours persons for the benefit of congenial neighbourhood environment. Following principles laid down by the division