This is an application under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code for quashment of criminal proceedings against the petitioners pending in the Court of Magistrate 1st Class, Gujranwala. The back--ground is that a case was got registered against the petitioners under section 324/34 307/452, P. P. C. At Police Station Model Town, Gujran--wala. On 13th September, 1978. The allegation against the petitioners was that they were armed with chhuris and that they trespassed into the house of "0uhammad Yasin (P. W. 1) and caused injuries to him as well as Muhammad Ismail (P. W.
4) and Siraj Din (not examined so far). The reason for this quarrel was that a sister of Muhammad Yasin P. W. Was married to Muhammad Siddique, petitioner No. 2, and he would not allow her to accompany her husband. It may be pointed out at this stage that Abdur Rashid and Muhammad Siddique petitioners are real brothers, whereas a sister of Jameel-ud-Din petitioner is married to Muhammad Yasin P. W. Complainant. It has already been pointed out that the sister of Muhammad Yasin P. W. Complainant is married to Muhammad Siddique petitioner. Thus, the parties are closely inter--related. The challan was sent up against the petitioners and they were accordingly charged by the Magistrate 1st Class, Gujranwala. The injuries sustained by the three injured in the instant case, according to the medical evidence: are all simple in nature. Muhammad Ismail P. W. And Siraj Din inured, are employees of Muhammad Yasin P. W. Complainant. After framing the charge as against the petitioners, the Magistrate proceeded to record the evidence in the instant case and he recorded the statements of five P. Ws. Including Muhammad Yasin (P. W. 1) and Muhammad Ismail (P. W. 4), the two injured persons. The third injured person, namely. Siraj Din, has not appeared before him so far. The other witnesses whose statements were recorded were either formal or recovery witnesses or those eye-witnesses who witnessed the occurrence but were not injured. Since the accused and the complainant party were closely related, at a later stage, they entered into a compromise and on the basis of this compromise, they moved an applica--tion under section 249-A, Cr. P. C. For quashment of criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in the Court of the Magistrate 1st Class on 4th May, 1981. The Magistrate vide his order dated 7th September, 1981 dismissed the said application for the reason that it was not maintainable under section 249-A, Cr. P. C. Thereafter the petitioners moved the present application under section j61-A, Cr. P. C. Which was admitted for full hearing on 10th January, 1982.
2. The contention of the learned counsel is that the parties have entered into a compromise and because of the said compromise no prosecution witness is coming forward to get his statement recorded since 27th January, 1980 onwards and that no useful purpose would be served if the, trial was made to continue except that it would be an abuse of the process of the Court. It is also submitted that the Magistrate concerned should have acquitted the petitioners by exercising his powers under section 219-A, Cr. P. C. Learned Assistant Advocate-General, on the other hand, argued that the Magistrate concerned has correctly passed his order under section 249-A, Cr. P. C.
The contention before him of the petitioner; was that the parties were related inter se and the complainant had forgiven them and they had now come to a compromise. Furthermore, the injuries sustained by the members of the complainant party were all simple in nature and that, therefore, in exercise of powers finder section 249-A, Cr. P. C. The Magistrate should acquit them.
Learned Assistant Advocate-General points out that in exercise of the powers under section 249-A, Cr. P. C. a Magistrate can acquit an accused person at any stage of the case after hearing the parties and for the reasons to be recorded if he considers that ---
(i) the charge is groundless ; or that (ii)there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence.
Learned Assistant Advocate-General points out that either of the grounds is not available to the petitioners in the instant case and that, therefore, the Magistrate was correct in arriving at the conclusion that the application in question, was not maintainable. In the instant case, the charge is not groundless. The petitioners have been properly charged and statements of two out of the three victims have already been recorded. Similarly, statements have been recorded of eye-witnesses who had witnessed the occurrence but were not injured. Then the statements of attesting witnesses of some of the recoveries (i. e. Chhuris) from the petitioners have also been recorded.
Now if they had arrived at a compromise, it cannot be said that the charge was groundless as against them. It is then submitted that it would not be proper to say, iii the circumstances of the case, that there was no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence as there is sufficient evidence already on the record as against the petitioners. Merely arriving at a compromise on the ground that the complainant had forgiven the petitioners or the complainant is trying to withdraw the case of criminal nature, would not mean that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence. It was submitted that even this Court cannot proceed to quash the proceedings under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. In the circumstances of the present case. The only order which could be passed is that if there was no likelihood of the other witnesses appearing before the Magistrate, then the Magistrate should conclude the trial on the evidence which he has already recorded and to proceed to pass his judgment in the light of the compromise of the parties. It is submitted that a compromise could have only the effect of reduction of the sentence as a mitigating circumstance and no more. I think there is substance in the arguments of the learned Assistant Advocate-General. I agree with him that under section 561-A, Cr.
11. C. I cannot interfere, in the circumstance of the case, except issuing certain directions to the Magistrate concerned before whom the matter is pending. It is evident from the medical examina--tion that prima facie the injuries received by the victims in the instant case are all simple in nature.
Therefore prima facie the petitioners may not be convicted under section 307/34, P. P. C. But could at the most be convicted under section 324,134, P. P. C. Similarly, it is evident from the record that the accused and the complainant party are closely inter--related and, that therefore, prima facie it cannot be said that the peti--tioners had trespassed into the house of the complainant, particularly when one of them was married to the sister of the complainant and had gone to take his wife with him and the other's sister is married to the complainant. In such circumstances, prima facie they may not be convicted under section 452/34, P. P. C. It is apparent from the order sheet of the Magistrate that because of the compromise between the parties no prosecution witness is forthcoming ever since January, 1980 and there is no likelihood of any P. W. Appearing in the instant case except the formal P. Ws. I, therefore, direct the Magistrate that he should conclude the trial on the evidence which he has already recorded and pass his judgment in the light of the compromise reached between the parties and in accordance with law. With these observations this petition is disposed of. The record of the case titled "State v. Jameel--ud-Din etc." should be sent to the Court of the Magistrate Section 30, Gujranwala, by the office within one week.