1. MUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR J. Through instant criminal appeal, appellant Manzoor Ali Brohi has assailed Judgment dated 18.04.2016 passed by learned is Additional Sessions Judge, Naus hahro Feroze in Sessions Case No.284/2012 (Re-The State v. Manzoor Ali and others), being outcome of FIR No.124/2008 registered at Police Station Naushahro Feroze under sections 324, 382, 506/2 and 337-H(2), P.P.C., whereby he convicted the accused/appellant for an offence punishable under section 324, P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I for five (05) years as Tazir and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as Arsh to the injured/complainant Ali Nawaz. In case of non-payment of Arsh, the appellant was ordered to be dealt with under the provisions of section 337-X(2), P.P.C. The accused/appellant was also convicted for offence punishable under section 337-F(ii) read with section 34, P.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 18 months as Tazir and to pay amount of Rs.5000/- as Daman to injured/complainant Ali Nawaz and in case of default, the accused was ordered to be dealt with under the provisions of section 337-Y(2), P.P.C. The appellant Manzoor Ali was also convicted for offence punishable under section 382, P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and in case of re n payment of fine, accused was to suffer S.I. for three (3) months more. Appellant was also convicted for an offence punishable under section 506/2, P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three (3) years. The appellant was also convicted for an offence punishable under section 337-H(2), P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. and sentenced to suffer S.I. for one month more. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently . However , the appellant was extended benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. It was further directed that the case against the absconding accused namely Ali Dost and Rehmatullah be kept on dormant file till their arrest/appearance.
2. On 07.11.2018, two joint applications being Cr. Misc. Applications Nos. 6376 of 2018 and 6377 of 2018 under sections 345(2), Cr.P.C. and 345(6), Cr.P.C. respectively were filed for compromise between the appellant and complainant. The said applications were duly signed by appellant Manzoor Ali, complainant Ali Nawaz as well as their respective advocates. The said applications were duly supported by the affidavits of complainant Ali Nawaz, who is himself a practicing advocate and is working as Assistant District Public Prosecutor posted at District Sangher . In the said affidavits the complainant stated that he has compromised the matter with the appellant/accused outside the court and has amicably resolved the controve rsy due to intervention of the 'nekmards' in order to burry up the dispu te and make the locality peaceful. He further stated that he has forgiven the accused/appellant in the name of Almighty Allah and he has no objection if the compromise application is allowed. Complainant was also present in Court on 07.11.2018 and affirmed the contents of the said affidavits. In addition, he submitted that he has pardoned the appellant and does not claim any compensation in terms of Qisas and Diyat. He further submitted that as far as sections 382 and 506/2, P.P.C. are concerned, the same were applied by the police, although no incriminating articles and stolen property were recovered from the appellant or produced by him during the investigation of the case, however the police in order to support the contents of FIR, had shown recovery of certain articles from abandoned place in terms of section 550, Cr.P.C. but factually nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused/appellant which may connect him with the charge of sections 382 and 506/2, P.P.C. He raised no objection if the appellant is also acquitted from the charges of aforesaid sections as, according to him, those were not proved during the evidence.
3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the material available on the record.
4. The offences punishable under sections 324 and 337, P.P.C. are compoundabl e, whereas the offences under sections 382 and 506/2, P.P.C. do not find mention in the table of compoundable offences provided under section 345, Cr.P.C. Now the question arises that when the parties have amicably settled their disputes and have compromised in respect of the main offences under sections 324 and 337, P.P.C., other non-compoundable offences under sections 382 and 506/2, P.P.C. allegedly committed by the accused/appellant during the course of same incident, could also be compromised? and as to whether such compromise could be entertained or not by this Court?
5. It is an admitted fact that both the parties have amicably settled all their differences and disputes and have agreed to pass rest of their lives in peace, tranquility and harmony . It may be observed that non-compoundability of a particular offence under any section of the enactment, should not be read in isolation but it should be read in the background of each criminal case and beneficial interpretation should be given to it. If any authority is needed, reference may be made to the case of ljaz and another v. Mst. Manadia (PLD 2016 Peshawar 26). In the instant case, when both the parties have earnestly decided to live in peace and tranquility by ignoring and settling all their past differences, then for the sake of their welfare in general and betterment of socio-economic conditions of the society as a whole, it will be prime need of the time to accept the compromise and consequently acquit the appellant from the charges.
6. In the cases reported as Ijaz and another v. Mst. Manadia (PLD 2016 Peshawar 26) and Suo Motu case Re-The State v. Irfanullah Qazi (2007 MLD 1269 ), the offences relating to Special Law/A TA etc. were not compoundable; however , on account of compromise arrived at between the parties, same was recognized by Honourable Peshawar High Court as well as by this Court.
7. A Division Bench of this court while dealing with this point in the case of Hussain Bux and others v. The State reported in PLD 2003 Karachi 127 (DB) observed as under: "At this juncture we would like to refer to another objection of Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, learned Assistant A.G to the effect that the offence under section 302, P.P.C. is compoundable while the offence under section 149, P.P.C. is not compoundable. Although in Second Schedule to Cr.P.C. it is contained that the offence under section 149, P.P.C. is not compoundable but we are persuaded to agree with the views of Mr. Muhammad Bachal Tunio, learned A.A.G, and Mr. Ali Nawaz Ghanghro Advocate, the learned amicus curiae, that offence under section 149, P.P.C., is by way of constructive liability and when the main offence is allowed to be compounded and the persons who have taken specific part in the commission of offence are allowed to compound, then the persons who are convicted on account of being merely members of unlawful assembly are also entitled to the concession of compromise/compounding/waiver , otherwise it would not be in consonance with the principles of justice, in accordance with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in Holy Qur'an and Sunnah."
8. Yet in another case reported as Ashique Solangi and another v. The State (PLD 2008 Karachi 420) it was held by this Court as under: "2. The applicants were convicted under sections 452, 337-H(2), 506/2 and 148, P.P.C. The legal question is that certain offences are compoundable and certain offences are not compoundable. I am of the clear view that if the main offence is compoundable and parties have compromised against themselves then the small offences should be treated as compromised though under the statute those are not compoundable. In the present case revision keeping in view the compromise which has taken place between the parties outside the Court, it is not proper to uphold the conviction specially when the complainant does not want to pursue his case anymore. In the circumstances, I accept the revision application and order acquittal of both the applicants from the charge."
9. In another case reported as Imdad Hussain v. The State (PLD 2008 Lahore 450), Honourable Lahore High Court held as under: "5. The main offence of Qatl-i-amd is compoundable. The legal heirs of Umer Farooq deceased compounded the of fence and af fected a compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased.
10. The legal heirs appeared before the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala and certified their compromise with Imdad Hussain, appellant. The learned Sessions Judge also verified genuineness of compromise between the parties vide his report, referred to above. In the given circumstances the principle of merger is applicable, which is to the effect that in case of compromise between the parties in a criminal case, the minor offence even if not compoundab le merges into the compoundable major offence. The result would be that after acquittal of the appellant of the major offence of Qatl-i-amd in terms of compromise the minor offence of house trespass is deemed to have been compounded under the principle of merger ."
11. In another case reported as Shahid v . The State and another (2017 YLR Note 81 [Lahore]) it was held as under: "Needless to say, compromise even in non-compoundable offences makes a crucial circumstance and a redeeming feature which helps the warring-parties come close to each other and live peacefully onwards. Let non- compoundable nature of the of fences under sections 452, 354, P .P.C. not frustrate their noble intentions."
12. In the case of ljaz and another , supra, while dealing with similar situation, it was held by Peshawar High Court as under: "5. No doubt section 436, P.P.C. is not compoundable and section 345, Cr.P.C. is inapplicable to compound it but equally it is an admitted fact that both the parties have amicably settled down all their differences and have resolved to lead rest of their lives in peace and tranquility .....
8. Of course, in letter , section 436, P. P. C. is not compoundable. However , non-com poundability of a section of law should not be read in isolation but it should be read in the background of each criminal case and a beneficial interpretation should be given to it. When the parties in the instant case have earnestly decided to live in peace by forgetting all their differences then it will be a need of the hour to acquit the petitioners in the instant case on the basis of compromise despite the non-compoundability of section 436, P .P.C."
13. Honourable Lahore Court in the case of Ali Raza and another v. The State and another reported in PLD 2013 Lahore 651 made following observations: "The offence alleged is certainly non-compoundable but eagerness of the parties to settle their dispute by executing an agreement, in mentioned terms has to be given a sense of respect, so that they may harvest benefit thereof. The complainant and his wife, who are doctors/medical-of ficers by profession, hence, educated persons; well understand the ins and outs of the compromise arrived at and they, being, present in person like Mst. Kalsoom Bibi accused have expressly stated that they on account of compromise do not intend to prosecute the accused- petitioners further , if the loss allegedly sustained by the complainant and his wife at the hands of the accused/petitioners has been made good, to their entire satisfaction, there may be no harm in allowing the instant applications for bail after arrest. Even otherwise, it has always been observed that the compromise even in non-compoundable offences is a redeeming factor , which brings peace, harmony and coherence in the society and it may have far-reaching positive effects, in the lives of warring-parties."
14. The accumulative effect of above discussion and in view of above legal position, I am clear in my mind that if the main offence is compoundable and parties; particularly victim/injured; have compro mised against themselves then small offences should be treated as compromise though under the statute those are not compoundable. In the present case/appeal keeping in view the compromise which has taken place between the parties outside the Court it is not proper to decline the compromise and to uphold conviction; specially when the complainant; who at the same moment is victim/injured; does not want to pursue his case anymore. In the circumstances; I accept the compromise applications and order acquittal of the appellant from all the charges. Consequently; in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, instant appeal along with pending application(s) is allowed. The appellant present on bail is hereby acquitted of all the charges. His bail bonds are cancelled and surety furnished by him is also discharged.