1. ' MS. RUKHSANA AHMED, J.---Through this Criminal Miscellaneous Application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., the applicant, being dissatisfied with the order dated 2nd October, 2009, passed by learned Magistrate under section 173, Cr.P.C. Whereby he while disagreeing with the report of the police in "C" Class submitted in an F.I.R. Bearing No,478 of 2009, P.S. Darkshan, Karachi under sections 320/337-G, P. P . C . Took cognizance of the case and sent the same to the Sessions Court for its trial, has prayed for quashment of the proceedings arising out of such F.I.R.
2. ' Learned counsel at the every outset argued that learned Magistrate has failed to take into consideration the compromise arrived between the parties during investigation and the learned Magistrate even did not consider the fact that the concerned parties do not intend to proceed with the trial and in this regard no objection in the shape of Settlement Deed has been given by the legal heir of the deceased as well as injured. He further argued that I/O and SSP Investigation called the injured as well as legal heirs of the deceased in order to ascertain the truthfulness and genuineness of the settlement arrived at between the parties and after satisfying themselves the senior Police Management also came to a conclusion that the case be closed under "C" Class. He lastly argued that in view of his submissions, the order of the learned Magistrate is not speaking order as he has not appreciated the detailed investigation conducted by the police thus the same is liable to be quashed. In support of his submissions he relied upon the cases reported as 2006 PCr.LJ 518 and 1997 SCMR 1503.
3. ' On the other hand Mr. Abdul Rehman Kolachi learned A.P.-G vehemently opposed and supported the order of the learned Magistrate.
4. I have heard both the learned counsel at some length and also perused the material available before me. Basically learned counsel emphasized on the submission that once a settlement has been arrived at between the parties durin investigation outside the Court, the learned Magistrate should have accepted the Report submitted by the police in "C" class. In order to examine the legal position, it would be profitable to examine the relevant provisions of law i.e, section 354(2) and (7)
5. Cr.P.C. Which deal with the compounding of offences with which the applicant has been booked. A careful perusal of the section 345(2), Cr.P.C. Provides that the offences so mentioned in the table are only compoundable with permission of the Court before which any prosecution is pending A and the three columns of table shown there under provides (i) the nature of offence, (ii) the section of Pakistan Penal Code and (iii) persons by whom offence may be compounded. It would be fruitful to reproduce subsections (2) & (7) of section 345, Cr.P.C. Which is as under:--
(2) The offences punishable under the sections of the Pakistan Penal Code specified in the first two columns of the table next following may, with the permission of he Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in third column of that table.
(7) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section.
6. A perusal of the above quoted subsection provides that all the offences shown in column Nos. 1 and 2 of the table of subsection (2) of section 345, Cr.P.C. Can only be compounded with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution of such offence is pending, which is prerequisite condition and further subsection (7) provides that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section. Therefore, any settlement between the parties as regards the compromise of the offence before the prosecution of the case having started is ineffective one.
7. However, in a case reported as Naurang Rai v. Kidar Nath and another 29 Criminal Law Journal 1928, it had been observed that the cases falling under subsection (2) of section 345 Cr.P.C. Are only compoundable with he permission of the Court and not otherwise. It has also been observed in the case reported as AIR 1937 Mad. 825 and AIR 1968 All. 394, that in cases governed by subsection (2) of Section 354, Cr.P.C. No effect can be given to a compromise unless the Court had sanctioned the compromise. Nevertheless, in case reported as 2001 PCr.LJ 241, where the compromise was effected during the investigation and the petitioner in his petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Prayed for quashing of F.I.R. On the ground that police had been rendered incapable of submitting the challen before the trial Court on the basis of compromise. The Lahore High Court in its elaborate decision while dealing with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that composition under section 345, Cr.P.C. Could be done at the police stage, inter alia held as under: "During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner was of the view that composition of offences covered under section 345 Cr.P.C. Could be done at the police stage. This is possible only in cases falling under section 345(1) and not under section 345(2) of the Cr.P.C. Law was careful in not allowing composition outside the Court in serious cases covered under section 345(2) of the Cr.P.C.
8. ' The purpose of law being on one hand to ensure voluntary composition and on the other to keep investigating authorities at arm's length in doing such acts which in the administration of justice, the Courts alone are called upon to decide.
9. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that all cases falling under section 345(2) of the Cr.P.C. Can only be compounded when a prosecution regarding those cases was pending before a competent trial' Court and any compromise outside the Court has not to be given any value until it has been sanctioned by a Court as envisaged in column No,2 of section 345(2) of the Cr.P.C.
10. ' Similar view was taken in the cases reported as 2005 YLR 1199, PLD 2002 Quetta 42.
11. ' In view of the above discussion, I have come to the conclusion that the offence shown in the table referred to in subsection (2) of section 345 Cr.P.C. Can only be compounded with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending and any compromise arrived at between the parties outside the Court has no value in the eye of law.
12. ' Dealing with the last argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that the order of the learned Magistrate is without appreciating the detailed investigation conducted by the police and thus the same is liable to be quashed, it is observed that the order dated 2nd October 2009 passed by the learned Magistrate is a detailed order wherein he while thoroughly examining the whole material placed before him took the cognizance of the case. However, powers under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.
13. Are to be exercised sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances in the interest of justice and to check abuse of process of law. It is not meant to stifle the prosecution case so as to interrupt or divert course of criminal procedure, as laid down in the procedural statutes. For reference I refer to the case reported as 2008 PCr.LJ 11.
14. ' The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contentions is not applicable in the present case as the facts of those cases are entirely different from the case in hand.
15. ' For the foregoing discussion I am of the considered view that no case for quashment of proceedings is made out, therefore, I am constrained to dismiss the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,282 of 2009.