' This is an appeal against the acquittal of respondent No,1 in case F.I.R. No,113 of 1998 registered under section 324/34, P.P.C., in Police Station Faisal Town on the statement of Rukhsar Fatima. The F.I.R., was lodged by the complainant Rukhsar Fatima against Muhammad Tufail and Muhammad Latif, who are real brothers. Challan was submitted in the Court of Malik Nisar Ahmad, Judicial Magistrate section 30, Model Town, Lahore who vide his order, dated 9-2-1999 acquitted Muhammad Tufail, respondent.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was married to Muhammad Tufail, respondent but later on the relations between the parties became strained. The appellant filed some civil suits against Muhammad Tufail respondent and on 21-4-1998 the respondent alongwith his brother Muhammad Latif came to the house of the appellant and asked her to withdraw the civil suits she refused on which both of them fired with their fire-arms resulting the injuries on the legs of appellant. Challan was submitted in this case against the respondent and his brother and an application was submitted under section 345, Cr.P.C., by the present respondent for his acquittal and the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent vide his order, dated 9-2-1999 of the basis of compromise between the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no compromise written between the appellant and the respondent and even no affidavit in this regard was submitted before the trial Court. He further submits that -during the investigation mother of the appellant died and respectables of the area intervened to the matter and the appellant gave affidavit which is on the record in which she has stated that she has compromised with respondent to the extent of his bail but the learned trial Court ignored this important fact and acquitted the accused and so unjustice has taken place with the appellant.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No,1 submits that once a compromise is affected between the parties then the aggrieved person cannot be retrieved from the same, He also relied upon MLD 1995 page 563. He has read before me the judgment cited by him, in which the facts of the case are totally different to that of the present case. During the course of bail application the injured P.W. Appeared before the trial Court and he made a statement categorically that she has compromised with the accused but in the instant case the compromise was up to the extent of bail, application of the present respondent so that he may be released on bail.
5. After going through the record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of The view that the acquittal of respondent No,1 has taken place on wrong basis. In this view of the matter, I accept this appeal and set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, section 30. Case is remanded back to learned trial Court with a direction to expedite the matter as early as possible. Respondent No,1 is also directed to face the trial before the trial Court. Record would be sent back to the learned Trial Court immediately.