THE REGISTRAR vs IMRAN HAIDER
This suo motu revision arises from an order passed by the trial court wherein the accused, charged with offences under sections 336, 337-A(i), 367, and 368 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, were acquitted on the basis of a compromise. Although offences under sections 367 and 368 are not compoundable, the trial court permitted the compromise to promote goodwill between the parties, relying on certain precedents. The core legal question was whether a trial court can permit the composition of non-compoundable offences on the grounds of promoting goodwill and amity. The Sindh High Court held that considerations of goodwill cannot outweigh the plain requirements of law and that courts are not authorized to allow the composition of offences that are not compoundable under the law. The reference was accepted, the acquittal order based on the compromise for non-compoundable offences was set aside, and the trial court was directed to issue warrants for the appearance of the respondents and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
- Can a court permit the composition of non-compoundable offences to promote goodwill between parties?
- Whether considerations of goodwill can outweigh the plain requirements of criminal law regarding compoundable offences?
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 367, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 368, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, C.J.--- This suo motu revision arises from the order of my learned brother Muhammad Sadiq Leghari, J., dated 26-2-2004, where his Lordship while considering an application for discharge of surety noticed that the accused who were charged for offences under sections 336/337-A(i), P.P.C. As well as 367/368, P.P.C., the respondents were acquitted by the learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, on the basis of a compromise between the parties. However, while noticing that offence under section 367 and 368, P.P.C. Were not compoundable, the learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded to hold that for promoting goodwill between the parties he had allowed them to compromise. In support of his view, he appeared to have relied upon Ghulam Abbas v. The State 1994 M LD 1294 and State v. Muhammad Afzal 1994 PCr.LJ 997.
2. ' I have gone through both the above pronouncements of learned Single Judges of the Lahore High Court. I am afraid none of them supports his view. The first one is clearly inapplicable inasmuch as compositions of offences of murder were allowed to promote goodwill but such offences are admittedly compoundable under the law. In the second case, the Court allowed composition of offence to promote goodwill and only which were under the law compoundable with the permission of the Court. Indeed, the consideration of goodwill and amity would always be there whenever a matter is not per se compoundable between the parties and the Courts intervention is necessary. However, when even a Court is not authorized to allow composition of offences no consideration of goodwill can outweigh the plain requirements of law.
3. ' I would, therefore, accept the reference and refer the matter to the learned trial Court, which will issue appropriate warrants to the respondents for their appearance and proceed to decide the