' The facts in brief of the case in hand are that during the trial of the case F.I.R. No,350, dated 22-8- 1995, under section 302/34, P.P.C. Of Police Station Kundian, Mst. Sakina and Muhammad Younas, the legal heirs of Salamat Ali deceased allegedly entered into a compromise from which they later on resiled as the terms of the compromise had not been fulfilled by the accused-party. An application moved under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. By the accused for their acquittal was accordingly dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, vide order dated 13-2-1998 and the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. Saeed Ahmad (petitioner-accused) aggrieved of the said order challenged the same through this revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the legal heirs of the deceased had entered into a compromise with the accused and had pardoned the accused in the name of Allah and, thus, they could not resile from the same. He relied upon the case of Syed Sabir Hussain Shah and another v. Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah and another (1995 M LD 563) and submitted that the heirs of the deceased after having entered into a valid compromise were not competent to withdraw from the same. In this regard, he referred to the application for compromise of Muhammad Younas and Mst. Sakina Bibi dated 24-1-1998 supported by the affidavits and their statements recorded in Court.
3. The learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3, the legal heirs of the deceased, on the other hand, submitted that the compromise between the parties had not become effective and as the petitioner and the co-accused had not fulfilled the terms and conditions of the compromise, the respondents were within their rights to revoke the same. He relied upon the cases of Muhammad Azam v. The State (1992 SCM R 694) and Abdul Ghafoor and 3 others v. The State (1992 SCM R 1218) and submitted that no compromise could be accepted being acted upon without the satisfaction of the Court that the same was voluntary and was free from blemish and doubts. According to him, the factum of compromise could be referred for an inquiry regarding genuineness and voluntariness etc. Etc.
4. No doubt the legal heirs of the deceased - once entered into a compromise with the accused, including the petitioner, and for that purpose moved an application supported by the affidavits and also made statements in Court on 24-1-1998, but later on they appeared in Court alongwith affidavits and made statements that the accused had resiled from the terms of the compromise and as such they do not want the decision of the case on the basis of the compromise.
Accordingly, the learned Judge ignored the compromise and ordered for the production of prosecution evidence. It is now well-settled that a decision of case or acquittal of the accused on the basis of a compromise can only be made after the Court is satisfied about the genuineness of the compromise and the capacity of the legal heirs to enter into such a compromise under section 345, Cr.P.C. The relevant provisions as contained in section 345, Cr.P.C, are as under : - "345. Compounding offences.(1).............................
(2) The offences punishable under the sections of the Pakistan Penal Code specified in the first two colums of the table next following may, with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that table:- ' Qatl-i-Amd. By the heirs of. The victims."
5. It is obvious from the above, that the offence of Qatl-i-Amd can be compounded by the heirs of the victim. In the instant case, Mst. Sakina Bibi and Muhammad Younas, the mother and brother of Salamat Ali deceased are the only heirs of the deceased and they are the only persons to enter into a compromise with the accused, but before the compromise was made effective they resiled from the same on the ground that the accused had failed to fulfil the terms of the compromise. It is simple that a person who can enter into a compromise can get out it before it is acted upon.
Moreover, it is the duty of the trial Court to satisfy itself about the genuineness of the compromise that it should be voluntary, free from any pressure and there should be no element of doubt. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Ghafoor prescribed three stages for effecting compromise. In the instant case, the legal heirs made statements disowning the factum of compromise before it was acted upon on the ground that the accused had not fulfilled the terms agreed between the parties. There is no bar that they cannot get out of a compromise which is c still at a premature stage. In section 345(2), Cr.P.C. The word may is used which cannotes that the heirs of a deceased person may or may not compromise with the accused. If they effect a compromise, it is subject to the permission of the Court dealing with the matter and the Court is bound to satisfy itself about the genuineness of the compromise in all respects. Where a compromise is for a consideration i.e, some compensation, already received by the heirs, ordinarily the heirs cannot back out from the compromise, but where it is generous act on the part of the heirs, i.e, in the name of allah, they are at liberty to withdraw from the compromise before it is made effective. Even in certain circumstances the acquittal on the basis of compromise can be set aside as held in the case of The State v. Mansoor Ali (1997 PCr.LJ 247). This include cases where subsequently it is found that:
(i) the compromise was procured through duress or coercion
(ii) the compromise was made by the persons not actually the legal heirs of the deceased,
(iii) the legal heirs were not capable of making a compromise because of insanity or minority etc., which was not disclosed at the time of compromise, and
(iv) the compromise was obtained by some fraud practiced upon the legal heirs by the accused.
' The above instances are not exhaustive and there can be many other can factors which lead to setting aside of the acquittal order passed on a compromise. It is frequently noticed that in many cases the poor and helpless heirs of a deceased cannot withstand the pressure tactics of the influential accused persons and finally submit to their demands even after the accused have exhausted all the remedies available under the law. This is mostly done out of fear of the accused and not of their own free-will to pardon them in the name of God. Therefore, the Courts must take all precautionary measures to ascertain that the compromise is not a forced one. The heirs can be given some time to think over it before they make a statement of having compromised with the accused.
6. The ruling referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand inasmuch as in the case of Syed Sabir Hussain Shah the legal heirs had already received compensation from the accused party in Court. Obviously they could not be allowed to backtrack after getting the compensation at bail stage.
In view of the above, this revision petition is dismissed in limine having no merits.