' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---. This single order shall decide the present petition (Criminal Petition No,67-K of 2008) and the connected petition (Criminal Petition No,68-K of 2008) as both have arisen out of a single order.
2. Petitioners, through the afore-noted petitions, seek leave to appeal, against order dated 5-9- 2008, whereby the learned High Court of Sin(' Bench at Sukkur, dismissed their applications (M.A.
Nos.1181, 1182, 1179 and 1180 of 2008).
3. Abdul Jabbar and Muhammad Ibrahim (petitioners in Criminal Petition No,67-K of 2008) and Ali Nawaz (petitioner in Criminal Petition No,68-K of 2008) were tried by the learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur Mathelo, for offences under sections 302/34, P.P.C., in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,46 of 2004. They were convicted for the offence punishable under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 25 years and to pay compensation of Rs,100,000 each to the legal heirs of deceased-Abdul Fattah, under section 544(a), Cr.P.C. In case of default, they were directed to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months more; the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also granted to them for the period, which they remained in jail as under trial prisoners, vide judgment dated 19-7-2007. The petitioners filed separate appeals (Criminal Appeal No,54 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal No,57 of 2007) before the learned High Court of Sindh Bench at Sukkur, challenging their conviction and sentence. During pendency of their appeals, they filed applications under section 345(2), Cr.P.C. (Criminal M.A. Nos.1181 and 1179 of 2008 in Criminal Appeals Nos.54 and 57 of 2007, respectively), for grant of permission to the parties to enter into compromise, and under section 345(6) Cr.P.C. (Criminal M.A. Nos.1182 and 1180 of 2008 in Criminal Appeals Nos.54 and 57 of 2007, respectively), for acceptance of compromise between the parties and seeking petitioner's acquittal on the basis of compromise. Those applications were duly supported by the affidavits of complainant and the legal heirs of the deceased. The learned High Court, A vide order dated 23-5-2008 directed the learned Sessions Judge, Ghotki to ascertain about the veracity and genuineness of the compromise and legal heirs of the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge after observing all the legal formAlities and recording statement of the legal heirs of the deceased ultimately reported that the compromise arrived at between the parties is genuine. The legal heirs also appeared before the learned High Court and affirmed the contents of the compromise. Despite all that learned single Judge in Chambers dismissed all the applications holding that this is not a fit case for compromise, vide single impugned order dated 5- 9-2008, hence the present petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that all the legal formalities, necessary for a valid and legal compromise, were completed and the -statements of the legal heirs of the deceased were also recorded inasmuch as they appeared before the learned High Court and thereafter there was no lawful justification for refusing the compromise, but the learned High Court dismissed the applications and refused to acquit the petitioners without assigning any cogent reason. Learned Prosecutor-General, Sindh, who appeared in response to the notice issued to him, has very fairly conceded that this was a fit case for allowing the applications and that he did not support the impugned order.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Prosecutor-General, Sindh and examined the available record.
6. It is evident from the record and also discernible from the impugned order that upon filing the afore-noted applications by the petitioners, reports were called from the learned Sessions Judge concerned qua genuineness of the legal heirs of the deceased and the terms of the compromise.
The learned Sessions Judge, Ghotki after observing all the formalities and undertaking an inquiry, reported to the learned High Court that the compromise, entered into by legal heirs of the deceased, was genuine and it was executed without receipt of compensation by waiving their right of qisas and Diyat. Beside, legal heirs of deceased-Abdul Fattah namely Abdul Ghani (complainant/brother), Abdul Jabbar (brother), Saindino (Father) and Mst. Khairan (mother) appeared before the learned Single Judge and stated that they have compromised with the petitioners, forgiven them in the name of Almighty allah and they have no objection if the petitioners are acquitted of the charge. It appears that all the legal requirements for accepting the compromise were fulfilled and there was no legal impediment in accepting the compromise but the learned single Judge without assigning any cogent reason dismissed the said applications. We observed that such types of orders could not be approved by this Court. The learned Single Judge even after observing that legal heirs of the deceased have appeared before him and made their statements, rejected the applications, for no apparent reasons. We feel that under the circumstances the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
7 . For the foregoing reasons, the present petitions are converted into appeal, the same are allowed and the impugned order dated 5-9-2008 is set aside. Consequently, applications (M.As. Nos. 1181, 1182,1179 and 1180 of 2008) shall be, deemed to be pending before the learned High Court of Sindh, which shall decide the same in view of the afore-noted observations within a period of two weeks.
No order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.