' This petition under Sections 436,439, Cr.P.C., calls in question the order dated 4.9.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jampur, District Rajanpur whereby the application of the petitioner for permission to compound the offence has been dismissed.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on the complaint of petitioner, case FIR No, 298, dated 19.6.2007, was registered at Station Saddar Jampur, District Rajanpur, under Sections 302,324,109, 34., PPC. In the occurrence of the said, case, wife of petitioner namely, Mst. Jannat Bibi, his daughter Mst. Zeenat Mai and son Ibrahim had sustained injuries at the hands of assailants and Muhammad Ibrahim and Mst. Zeenat Mai died at the spot while Mst. Jannat Bibi was shifted to Tehsil Headquarter Hospital Jampur. It appears that in the FIR only one accused, namely Sardar Abdul Rehman was nominated with the allegation that he had sent his men for murder of the family members of the complainant-petitioner. Subsequently, on conclusion of trial, accused, namely Abdul Rehman son of Umar was acquitted. However, remaining accused persons remained at large and were declared as POs on completion of codal formalities.
3. Through an application dated 3.8.2013, the complainant-petitioner sought permission to compound the offence which was processed by the learned trial Court and statements of the legal heirs of deceased persons were recorded including that of the complainant-petitioner. However, ultimately, the learned trial Court vide order dated 4.9.2013 dismissed the said application with the following observations: "Perusal of record goes to evince that although the legal heirs of the deceased have compounded the offence and to this effect they also got recorded their statements besides furnishing their duly sworn affidavits yet the accused persons are absconding and the contents of the FIR shows that the accused persons are rebellions and are indulged in waging of war against Government of Pakistan and its sovereignty. The accused seem to be desperate persons, hence it appears that the compromising statements got recorded and the affidavits furnished by the legal heirs of the deceased are not volunteer rather the same are result of coercion, duress and pressure of the absconding accused persons. In the light of above discussion, I am not inclined to accept the compromise and application under Section 345(2) of Cr.P.C. Is hereby dismissed."
4. It is in this background that the petitioner has preferred the instant petition to assail the said order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in view of the law laid down in the cases titled "Mansoor Ahmad and another vs. 2' Additional Sessions Judge, Ghotki and another" (PLD 2012 Sindh 35) and "Muhammad Nawaz and others vs. The State" (1998 MLD 1) there was no legal bar in permitting to compound the offence and acquitting absconding accused persons; that what prevailed upon the learned trial Court to dismiss the application for permission to compound the offence is allegation levelled in the FIR which has yet to be proved and merely on the basis of bald allegation, the application for permission to compound the offence could not be disallowed.
6. Learned Additional Prosecutor General has not contested this petition.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that it is the sweet will of the complainant and other legal heirs of the deceased to effect compromise with the accused against whom, the allegation of commission of an offence is levelled provided the offence is compoundable. In the instant case, the offences charged against the accused i,e, Respondents No, 2 and 3 are compoundable and according to the impugned order, the legal heirs of the deceased have effected a compromise with the accused persons hence there appears to be no bar in allowing the application for compounding the offence and acquitting the accused persons.
8. As regards the fact that the accused with whom the compromise has been effected are absconders, to my mind, this is no bar to the acceptance of the compromise. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the case of Manzoor Ahmad supra (PLD 2012 Sindh 35), a portion whereof reads as under: "In the present case, in the application under Section 345(2), Cr.P.C., reproduced in Para. No, 8 above, legal heirs have specifically stated that they were seeking permission for compromise with the present accused as well as absconding accused and it was not available to the Court below not to allow this application against the absconding accused."
9. Similarly in the case of Muhammad Nawaz and others vs. The State (1998 MLD 1 Lahore), a Division Bench of this Court acquitted the accused facing trial along with another who was absconder at that time.
10. Another reason which found favour with the learned trial Court in not allowing the compounding of offence is that in his opinion the compromise was not voluntary in nature. To my mind, when all the legal heirs including the complainant had appeared before the learned trial Court and made statement that they had effected compromise with their free will and without any coercion or undue influence from any side, it could not be held that the compromise was not voluntary in nature.
11. In the light of above discussion, the impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law which is hereby set aside. Resultantly, the case is remanded to the learned trial Court to consider the compromise arrived at between the parties and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 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.