THE STATE vs IRFANULLAH QAZI
This matter arose out of a show-cause notice issued by the High Court calling upon the complainant and the accused to explain why a trial court order accepting a compromise for an offence under Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 should not be recalled, given that the section is non-compoundable. The core legal question was whether a compromise could be maintained regarding a non-compoundable offence of trespass where the primary dispute between neighbouring parties was resolved in the interest of justice and harmonious relations. The High Court, noting that the parties were neighbours who had settled their differences and relying on established precedent, held that where the main underlying dispute is compounded, maintaining prosecution for secondary offences would not serve the principles of justice or Islamic injunctions. Consequently, the High Court discharged the show-cause notice and upheld the disposition of the case based on the compromise.
- Can a show-cause notice to recall an order accepting a compromise for a non-compoundable offence under Section 452 PPC be discharged if the parties have resolved their underlying primary dispute?
- Whether secondary non-compoundable offences may be treated as settled when the main offence between neighbouring parties has been compounded in the interest of peace and justice?
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUSHIR ALAM, J.---It appears that when the application for return of the surety was moved by the Midhat Azeem Kidwai this Court noted that the offence under the F.I.R. Has since been compounded and the matter has been disposed of by the learned Trial Court. It was noted that the offence under section 452, P.P.C. Is not compoundable; show-cause notice was issued to the complainant and to the accused as to why order, dated 9-2-2004 to the extent of allowing compounding of the offence under section 452, P.P.C. May not be recalled.
2. ' Notice has been served. Complainant and accused are present inCourt.
3. ' Mr. Shahadat Awan learned counsel contends that since the parties are neighbours and living harmoniously and behaving properly, therefore, good sense prevailed and they have patched up their differences and decided to live in peace and harmony. It was stated that even in case where heinous crimes like murder are allowed to be compounded present crime under section 452, P.P.C. i,e, trespass to cause hurt and assault, is rendered secondary. It is urged that even if this Court remands the matter for decision on merits there is no likelihood to record conviction or otherwise.
4. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Hussain Bux v. State (PLD 2003 Karachi 127).
5. ' Mr. Arshad Lodhi learned A.A.-G. Concedes to the position as explained above, in the case of Hussain Bux (supra) wherein it was ruled that where main offence is allowed to be compounded then the persons who are convicted on account of being merely members of unlawful assembly are also entitled for concession of compromise otherwise it would not be in consonance with the principles of justice, in accordance with the injunctions of Islam. In view of the above, it may be observed that since the acceptance of the compromise in the larger interest of two neighbor's persons for the benefit of congenial neighbourhood environment. Following principles laid down by the division bench is recorded above. The notice issued on 9-8-2005 is discharged.
6. ' Revision stands disposed of.
Cited by 8 cases
- Imran Khan Brohi and another vs Adnan and another 2025 MLD 672
- Muhammad Saleem s/o Muhammad Azam vs The State 2024 SHC 694, 2025 MLD 238
- Muhammad Saleem Versus Meraj-ud-Din 2025 MLD 238
- Aslam and 4 others vs The State 2023 YLR 1188
- Mehboob Ali vs The State and others 2022 PCRLJ 749
- MANZOOR ALI vs The STATE 2020 P Cr. L J 278
- AKHTER HUSSAIN Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER SACHAL KARACHI 2020 PCrLJN 20
- MOHARRAM alias MAR00 vs The STATE 2016 MLD 580