ADNAN-UL-KARIM MEMON, J. The Appellants Papoo, Ghafoor and Karful through this Criminal Appeal under Section 410, Cr. P.C read with section 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 have assailed the judgment dated 18.1.2024 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge Thatta in Criminal Illegal Dispossession Complaint No.51 of 2022, whereby the teamed Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants for an offense under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs.50,000/- each and they were also directed to compensate the complainant with Rs.1,00,000/- each.
2. The case of the complainant is that on 10.02.2022, the appellants illegally occupied residential plot No.192 measuring 2000 Sq. Feet of complainant Adnan, situated in Deh Gharo, Taluka Mirpur Sakro District Thatta, such a complaint was filed before the trial court which was processed, and an investigation report was called from the SHO concerned, who after conducting the investigation submitted his report. After hearing the parties the trial court took cognizance of the offence and registered the criminal complaint vide order dated 21.07.2023.
3. The charge against them was framed at Ex. 02, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial side pleas at Ex:02/A to Exh.02/C respectively.
4. To prove the case, the complainant Adnan examined himself at Ex:03 and produced a photocopy, of Form-II at Exh.03/A and photocopy of the sketch... Exh.03/B. PW-02 Muhammad Ali at Exh.04 and PW-03 Ali at Exh.05.
5. The statement of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C were recorded at Exh.07 to Exh.09 respectively they denied the allegations of the complainant. The accused neither examined themselves on oath Under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced any witness in their defence.
6. The trial court after hearing the parties convicted and sentenced the appellants as discussed in the preceding paragraph.
7. Today, a joint application for compromise between appellants and complainant/respondent has been filed by the respective counsel for the parties duly supported with affidavits of appellants as well as complainant/respondent, both parties are present in court. The counsel for the respondent/complainant has also made a statement duly signed by the respondent/complainant to the effect that possession of the disputed property has been handed over to him and, therefore, he has no objection to acquittal of the appellants; even if the appellants may be acquitted of all the charges including the fine amount.
8. Learned Additional PG has no objection to the compromise between the parties on the aforesaid analogy.
9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the material available on record.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that though the specific provision for compounding offense is not embodied under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005; however, this being a Criminal Complaint is governed by the Scheme of Criminal Procedure Code of 1898, therefore, Section 345, Cr.P.C. is applicable and presumption would be that the offense related to the property which being of civil nature is compoundable; that the offenses in terms of Illegal Dispossession Act are compoundable. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the case 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). He further submits that although the respondent complainant is an aggrieved person the property dispute has been resolved as the possession of the same has been handed over to him, therefore, he (respondent/complainant) does not wish to linger on the proceedings; hence, the appeal may be disposed of by acquitting the appellants based on compromise.
11. On the other hand, the advocate representing the respondent/complainant states that after the conviction of the appellants, the parties have entered into compromise as a result whereof, the joint statement was made on behalf of the appellants and complainant before this Court.
Resultantly, their sentence was suspended and the appellants were enlarged on bail, and maintain law and order situation in the area and to live peacefully by maintaining peace and tranquility, they have filed a joint application duly supported by their respective affidavits, hence, no loss or injury would be caused to either side if they may be allowed to act upon the compromise effected between them (parties).
12. No doubt the legislature has not provided a specific section/provision under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 for compounding the offense even if it is lacking whether it will be treated as a compoundable or non-compoundable offense. However, Section 9 of the Act ibid provides that unless provided in the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the provisions contained under the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 shall apply to all the proceedings under the Act ibid. Therefore, I am of the clear view that the compromise effected between the parties under the Act ibid should be treated as the compromise within the meaning of Section 345, Cr.P.C. It is an admitted fact that both parties have amicably settled all their differences and have resolved to lead the rest of their lives in peace and tranquility. It is settled law that the non-compound ability of the particular Section of the law 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; more particularly, when the parties have earnestly decided to live in peace and tranquility by forgetting and giving up all their past transactions then for the sake of their welfare in general and betterment of socio-economic conditions of the society as a whole in particular, it will be prime need of time to acquit the appellant from the charge of instant case upon the basis of compromise despite the non-compoundability of the Section 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, if it is so.
13. In the cases of ljaz and another (Supra) and the State v. Irfanullah Qazi (Supra), the offenses related to Special Law/ATA, etc were not compoundable; however, due to the compromise effected between the parties, same was recognized by the Peshawar High Court as well as the Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Wali and Abdul Wahab (Supra), the compromise was effected between the parties during the pendency of the cases before the trial Court in terms of Sections 3/4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and subsequently was accepted; however, after the acquittal of the accused therein, some of the parties had challenged the validity of compromise effected between them before trial Court and wanted to reopen the case on certain issues but the Benches of Lahore as well Peshawar High Court had not disturbed the findings of the Courts below on account of compromise and. thus recognized the compromise took place between the parties before trial Court.
14. The appellants were convicted under Section 3 subsection (2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The legal question is that said offence is not compoundable nor the legislature has defined it in its preamble whether it should be treated as compoundable or non-compoundable. I am of the firm view that if the parties, particularly the aggrieved person/victim and both the parties i.e. the complainant and appellant/convict have compromised against themselves then it should be treated as compromised; though under the statute it has not been defined whether it is compoundable or non-compoundable. In the present case, keeping in view the compromise that has taken place between the parties outside the Court, it is not proper to hold the conviction, especially when the complainant does not want to pursue his case anymore and has raised his no objection for acquittal of the appellants.
15. In the circumstances and in view of the compromise effected between the parties, the instant appeal is disposed of. The appellants present on bail are hereby acquitted of all the charges. Their bail bonds are canceled and the surety furnished by them is also hereby discharged and returned to the surety by proper verification.
16. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.