1. ' SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.---The applicant through this Criminal Revision Application has challenged the order dated 21-5-2011 passed by the learned IVth learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi West in Sessions Case No,516 of 2009 whereby the application of the applicant/accused for recalling the order dated 8-11-2010 was dismissed.
2. Precisely the facts of the case are that an F.I.R. Bearing No,156 of 2009 under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. Was lodged by the complainant Abdul Ghafoor at Police Station SITE, Karachi alleging that due to firing of the applicant and his companions one Aman Khan died and the complainant received bullet injury. Challan was submitted by the police. Subsequently, due to intervention of respectable family elders, a compromise arrived at between the parties outside the Court and applications under sections 345(2), Cr.P.C. And 345(6), Cr.P.C. Were moved by the parties before the Court. Statement was recorded of the. Complainant by the learned trial Court so also Mst.
3. Zareen Taj widow of the deceased on oath that they have forgiven the applicant in the name of Almighty Allah.
4. ' The learned trial Court vide order dated 8-11-2010 allowed the application under section 345(2), Cr.P.C. To enter the parties into the compromise subject to deposit Diyat amount of Rs,2,00,000 for minor girl Ms. Bakhtawar and Rs,4,00,000 for minor boy Bilawal and the application under section 345(6), Cr.P.C. For acquittal was kept pending for payment of Diyat amount.
5. ' Thereafter, the applicant moved an application for recalling the order dated 8-11-2010 passed by the learned IVth Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi West praying that the widow of the deceased being the Wali waived the right of the minors and she is not interested to take the Diyat amount. This application was dismissed by the learned IVth Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi West vide its order as stated above. Hence, this Criminal Revision Application.
6. ' It is, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned trial Court without going through the No Objection and the statements recorded before the Court on oath by the complainant as well as the widow of the deceased passed the orders impugned herein.
7. According to the learned counsel, the widow of the deceased moved an application under section 345(4),' Cr.P.C. Which was allowed by the learned trial Court to become the Wali of the minors and consequent thereof she is entitled to waive the right on behalf of the minors. In support of his case, learned counsel for the Applicant has placed reliance upon the case of Muhammad Arif v. The State (2001 PCr.LJ 1804), Allauddin v. The State (2001 M LD 1757) and Muhammad Hanif v. The State (1993 PCr.LJ 166).
8. ' On the other hand, Mr. Abdullah Rajput, learned Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh has opposed the grant of this Criminal Revision Application on the ground that the learned trial Court has made no error in passing both the orders dated 8-11-2010 and 21-5-2011 and by consent the compromise had arrived at between the parties outside the Court upon payment of Diyat amount to the legal heirs of the deceased. In law, the widow of the deceased can waive her right, but she cannot waive the right of her minors.
9. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with their able assistance.
10. It appears from the record that due to intervention of the respectable family elders of the parties a compromise between the applicant and the complainant and the widow of the deceased arrived at and the applications under sections 345(2), Cr.P.C. And 345(6) Cr.P.C. Had been moved and took the orders in favour of the applicant, but the learned trial Court kept the application under section 345(6), Cr.P.C. Pending for acquittal of the applicant till payment of Diyat amount to the minors of the deceased. On 11-11-2010 only after 3 days from passing of the order which is impugned in this Criminal Revision Application, another application under section 345(4), Cr.P.C. Was filed on behalf of the widow of the deceased to be appointed her as guardian of the minors namely Bakhtawar and Bilawal, which was allowed.
11. In my humble view, moving of the application under section 345 (4), Cr.P.C. By the widow of the deceased only after 3 days from passing of the order which is impugned in this Criminal Revision Application shows ulterior motive of the applicant/accused, as first she was compelled to waive her right of Diyat and thereafter she was made to move the application under section 345(4), Cr.P.C. Praying to be appointed as guardian of the minors and by taking shelter of the law tried to obtain an order for waiving the right of the minors also in respect of Diyat amount granted by the learned trial Court. Therefore, I am of the firmed opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly kept the application under section 345(6), Cr.P.C. Pending for acquittal of the applicant till payment of Diyat amount to the minors of the deceased. In my view all this exercise is tainted with mala fide to deprive the minors from their legitimate right over the Diyat amount, for which they are entitled under the law of land as well as the Sharia.
12. ' In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not impressed with the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and the case law cited by him is not relevant in the instant application.
13. Therefore, in my opinion the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court.
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. 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.