' M. BILAL KHAN, J. ---This is an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of respondents namely Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Anwar, Akbar Ali and Muhammad Asghar sons of Nawab Din and Ghulam Mustafa son of Muhammad Ashraf.
' According to the learned counsel appearing for the State Muhammad Asghar son of Nawab Din has died which fact has been confirmed by him, as such the appeal to the extent of Muhammad Asghar son of Nawab Din abates within the meanings of section 431 Cr.P.C.
2. The appeal is directed against the order of acquittal dated 15-3-1992 passed by the learned Magistrate section 30 Gujranwala in case F.I.R. No, 70 dated 23-5-1991 under sections 324/337-B Qisas and Diyat Ordinance read with sections 148 and 149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Ghakhar District Gujranwala.
3. The complainant of the said case namely Khurshid Ahmed himself is present along with injured P.Ws. Abdul Razzaq and Jamshed. They have stated that they have effected a compromise with the accused persons and would not like to pursue the appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the State has argued at some length and tried to find faults in the order of acquittal and maintained that in the given facts and circumstances of the case the acquittal order was not sustainable in law. However he submitted that since a compromise, has been effected between the parties therefore he would not seriously prosecute this appeal.
5. Mr. Mohsin Raza, Advocate has filed his power of Attorney on behalf of the complainant and verifies that a compromise has taken place between the parties and that the complainant party did not wish to prosecute this appeal.
6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at length.
7. It may be relevant to state that when this State appeal had been preferred the right of appeal to the complainant party had not yet been accorded as section 417 (2-A) had not yet been enacted.
It was for this reason that the appeal had been preferred by the State. In my opinion the complainant and the injured witnesses are necessary parties and their standpoint is not only relevant but is absolutely essential in this matter. Since they are not willing to prosecute this appeal, as according to them they have entered into a compromise, therefore, any proceedings in the same would not be conductive to peaceful and harmonious relationship between the parties.
Any further action in this appeal would reopen the healed wounds which will not be desirable. The offences in which the appellants had been convicted are all compoundable.
8. Even otherwise on merits the learned counsel appearing for the State has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity, in the order of acquittal calling for interference by this Court.
' For what has been stated above this appeal stands dismissed.