' Briefly stated the facts of the case in hand are that on 30-7-1998 at about 9-00 a.m., while the complainant/respondent No,1 was ploughing his field, he was attacked by the accused/petitioners and was caused several blows. Accordingly, on the statement of the complainant/respondent No,1, F.I.R. No,93 dated 30-7-1998 under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. Was registered at P.S. Taman, District Chakwal.
2. On 1-8-1998 the accused/petitioners applied for their bail before arrest in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, . Talagang. They were allowed interim bail which was later on confirmed on 9-9-1998 upon an affidavit given by the complainant/respondent No,1 in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Talagang to the effect that he had effected a compromise with the accused/petitioners and had got no objection to the confirmation of their bail.
3. Later on, the challan was submitted in. The Court when the petitioners/accused moved an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. For acquittal on the ground of compromise referred above.
The trial Court did not find favour with the contention of the accused/petitioners and dismissed their petition vide order dated 16-6-1999. Hence the instant petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For the quashment of the proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talagang.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the accused/petitioners is that as the complainant/respondent No,1 had effected compromise with them and consequently, they were granted pre-arrest bail, so they were entitled to acquittal on that score alone. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Syed Sabir Husain Shah and another v. Syed Iftikhar Husain Shah and another 1995 M LD 563 and Syed Iftikhar Husain Shah v. Syed Sabir Husain Shah and 2 others 1998 SCM R 466.
6. A perusal of the authorities referred above clearly shows that facts of the said authorities are not identical to the facts in hand. In the authorities referred above, after the submission of challan charge had been framed and the matter had been adjourned for evidence. It is also fact that it was observed in 1995 M LD 563 Karachi that as and when the case is fixed for hearing, necessary order be passed. During the hearing of appeal, it was brought to the notice of Court that the accused had already been acquitted, as such the said order was confirmed. There is no doubt that the interim bail was confirmed on 9-9-1998 on the basis of compromise. However, the statement of complainant/respondent No, 1 recorded on 9-9-1998 clearly reveals that he had effected compromise to the extent of acceptance of bail application and of their release on bail. The statement does not reveal that he had effected compromise with regard to the final disposal of the case.
7. Be that as it may, since the stand of the accused/petitioners is that they have effected compromise with the complainant/ respondent No,1, so the trial Court is directed to summon the complainant/respondent No,1 and then to decide the case in accordance with law. There is no force in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.