' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Through this single order, I intend to dispose of two bail applications, separately moved by accused Muhammad Jamil and Ghulam Mustafa (Criminal Miscellaneous No,2276-B of 2013) and accused Aziz-ur-Rehman (Criminal Miscellaneous No,2449-B of 2013), as they stood involved in case F.I.R. No,431/12, dated 22-6-2012, registered for offences under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C., at Police Station, Township (Lahore).
2. Precisely, the story of F.I.R., as set-up by Muhammad Akram (complainant) is that he handed down a sum of Rs,9,60,000 to Aziz-ur-Rehman (petitioner) with a view to get his son and other relatives employed in Police and Customs Departments; the latter gave him six appointment letters, pertaining to the said departments and on verification, they turned out to be fake; he asked the said accused to refund the amount, whereon, through efforts of punchayat, he delivered two post-dated cheques of Rs,4,00,000 and Rs,2,00,000 to him; Aziz-urRehman accused-petitioner by joining his co-accused Jamil and Ghulam Mustafa (petitioners) committed the offence of forgery and extended threats of dire consequences and that of murder, in case, he (complainant) would lodge any case against them.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submit in unison that compromise has been effected between the parties and complainant's claim has been indemnified to his entire satisfaction and in this background he does not press against the bail-plea of the accused.
4. The complainant, Muhammad Akram, who has been identified by Muhammad Arshad ASI/I.O., endorses the said viewpoint by adding that terms and conditions of compromise/agreement have been reduced into writing and signed by both the sides, the original whereof along with his sworn affidavit has been furnished by him to substantiate the said plea; further submits that he does not object to allowance of the bail-plea of the accused/petitioners, on the basis of compromise.
5. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab, however, is not pleased with the situation and submits that offences committed by the petitioners are non- compoundable besides being heinous, therefore, he prays for rejection of these petitions.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the warring-parties have entered into compromise through an agreement-deed (Mark-A), which entails terms and conditions agreed upon by them. The complainant appears fully satisfied with the terms of compromise, as such, he does not oppose the bail-plea of the accused-petitioners, which is also evident from his sworn affidavit (Mark-B). Though, the accusations, mentioned in the F.I.R., constitute non-compoundable offences yet, compromise/reconciliation between the parties has always been held a redeeming feature, which brings peace and harmony in the society and only for this reason, the courts have always respected enthusiasms and passion of the parties to compound the offence, being compoundable or not. This is of course, not a job of the courts to pressurize the parties to continue with their hostilities or prosecute each other for years. The offence allegedly committed and gravity thereof can be validly determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence of the parties at trial. Let parties' will to compound the offences be respected and given an assent to, so that they may bear fruit thereof.
7. Therefore, the mentioned applications are accepted and the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners vide orders dated 20-2-2013 and 25-2-2013 are confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.