P L D 2010 Quetta 1
Before Qazi Faez Isa, C.J.
ABBAS and 2 others ---Petitioners
Versus
THE STATE ---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Quashment No.28 of 2009, decided on 2nd September, 2009.
Crimin al Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
---Ss. 561-A & 345 ---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.392 & 337 -F---Compromise not
allowed by Courts below ---Validity ---Accused were charged under S.392 and 337 -F, P.P.C. --
-Complainant had forgiven the accused ---Compromise de ed had been rejected by the Courts
below on the ground that S.392, P.P.C. was not compoundable ---Trial Court as well as the
Sessions Court had failed to consider that S.337 -F, P.P.C. was compoundable with the
permission of the Court as stipulated in S.345( 2), Cr. P. C. ---Forgiveness was one of the best
gifts one could give oneself ---Islam mandates justice and punishment of - wrong doers, but it
strongly emphasizes forgiveness, kindness and love to restore good relations ---Impugned
judgments to the extent o f S.337 -F, P.P.C. were improper and irregular ---Complainant had
forgiven the accused ---Accused present in Court were also repentant and sought forgiveness
in the name of Al -Mighty Allah ---Compromise effected between the parties was accepted to
the extent o f the offence under S.337 -F, P.P.C. and the accused were acquitted of that charge -
--Petition was partly, accepted ---High Court observed that if an application for withdrawal of
case under S.392, P.P.C. was submitted, State was expected to consider the same promptly.
Muhammad Rawab v. The State 2004 SCMR 1170; Ghulam Farid v. The State PLD 2006
SC 53; Muhammad Akhtar v. The State PLD 2007 SC 447; An -Nisa 4 -106; 110 and Al -
Baqarah 2:37; Ash -Shura 42:43; Ash -Shura 42:37 & 40 and Al -Imran 3:134 ref.
Abdul Khalid Kibdani Muhammad Aslam Chishti, S.A.M. Quadri and Mir Aurangzaib
appeared as Amicus Curiae.
Zahoor Ahmed Shahwani Prosecutor -General for the State.
Date of hearing: 2nd September, 2009.
JUDGMENT
QAZI FAEZ ISA C.J. ---Through this quashme nt petition order dated 6 -6-2009 and 24 -
6-2009, respectively, passed by Judicial Magistrate and Sessions Judge Kharan have
been assailed. The said orders rejected the compromise arrived at between the accused
and the complainant during the pendency of the trial.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant had
compromised the matter with the accused (the petitioners herein) and had forgiven them
and the compromise was submitted for consideration of the trial Court i.e . Judicial
Magistrate Kharan, but the same was dismissed on the ground that section 392, P.P.C. is
not compoundable. Revision against the said order was preferred before Sessions Judge
Kharan, who upheld the order of Judicial Magistrate, resultantly the pe titioners have
filed the instant quashment petition.
3. Relevant facts for determination of this petition are that F.I.R. was lodged and the
petitioners were charged under sections 392 P.P.C. and 337 -F. Section 337 -F is
compoundable under section 345, wh ereas section 392 P.P.C. is not compoundable.
Section 392 P.P.C. is the more serious of the two offences and prescribes a maximum
punishment of 10 years. In the determination of this matter M/s Muhammad Aslam
Chishti, Advocate, S.A.M. Quadri, Advocate and Mir Aurangzaib, Advocate, were
called upon to assist the Court. The learned Amicus are of unanimous view that section
392, P.P.C. is not compoundable. In this regard Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chishti, learned
Amicus, placed reliance upon the following judgments o f the Honourable Supreme
Court, which have held, that, save the offences listed in section 345, Cr.P.C. no offence
shall be compoundable.
1. Muhammad Rawab v. The State 2004 SCMR 1170
2. Ghulam Farid v. The State PLD 2006 SC 53
3. Muhammad Akhtar v. The State. PLD 2007 SC 447
4. The learned Amicus were also of the unanimous view that both the
subordinate Courts wrongly rejected the compromise to the extent of section
337-F P.P.C, which is compoundable.
5. Section 337 -F is compoundable "with the p ermission of the Court before which any
prosecution for such offence is pending" as stipulated in section 345(2), Cr.P.C.
However, neither the trial Court nor the appellate Court attended; to this matter.
Accordingly, to such extent the impugned judgments are improper and irregular and this
Court is constrained to exercise powers under section 439, Cr.P.C. to consider the
compromise effected between the parties to the extent of section 337 -F. The victim has
forgiven the accused. On the last date of hearing the accused were ordered to be
produced and they are present in Court and are repentant and seek forgiveness in the
name of Al -Mighty Allah.
6. In Islam there are two kinds of forgiveness Allah's forgiveness and human
forgiveness. Allah is the Most Forgi ving. Many of the names of Allah given in the Holy
Quran relate to His mercy and His forgiveness and are often repeated. Such repetition is
an indication of the merciful nature of our Lord. The Name "Al -Ghaffar" occurs more
than 70 times and may be transla ted to mean "The Most Forgiveing". "Al -Tawwab",
"The Accepter of Repentance", finds mention 11 times. "Al -Haleem" the clement finds
mention 15 times in the Holy Quran. "Al -Rahman", The Most Merciful, is mentioned 57
and "Al -Raheem", The Compassionate, is m entioned 115 times. "Al -Afaw", The
Releaser (of sins), occurs 5 times in the Holy Quran. Those who seek forgiveness from
Allah are assured that they will find Allah "Oft -Forgiving. Most Merciful" (An -Nisa
4:106 and 110). "Verily, He is the. One who forgive s, (and is) The Most Merciful" (Al -
Baqarah 2:37).
7. Just as human beings require Allah's forgiveness of their sins Our Creator informs us
of the merits of practising forgiveness towards those who wrong us. "Whosoever shows
patience and forgives, that would truly, be from the things recommended by Allah"
(Ash -Shura 42:43). The persons who forgive are assured of a reward from Allah (Ash -
Shura 42:37 and 40) and Allah loves them (Al -Imran 3:134).
8. It is said that forgiveness is one of the best gifts one can give oneself. Islam mandates
justice and punishment of wrong doers, but it strongly emphasizes forgiveness, kindness
and love to restore good relations between the people.
9. Accordingly, this Court accepts the compromise effected between the parties to the
extent of the offence of section 337 -F, P.P.C. and acquits the petitioners of the charge
under section 337 -F, P.P.C. pursuant to section 345, P.P.C.
10. As regard section 392, P.P.C. the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the
petitio ners will be submitting an application for withdrawal of the case to the respondent for
favourable consideration. If such an application is submitted, the respondent is expected to
consider it promptly.
Petition partly accepted.
N.H.Q./39/Q Orde r accordinglThis judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.