Pakistan Case Law
2008 PLD Karachi 420

ASHIQUE SOLANGI and anothers vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2008 PLD Karachi 420
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Criminal Revision No,S-51 of 2005
Date2008-04-29
Judge(s)Khawaja Naveed Ahmed
ResultRevision petition accepted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This criminal revision application challenged the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, which had convicted the applicants under sections 452, 337-H(2), 506/2, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether a conviction for multiple offences, some of which are non-compoundable, can be set aside when the parties have reached an out-of-court compromise regarding the main offence. The Court held that where a compromise has been effected between the parties, it is inappropriate to maintain a conviction, particularly when the complainant no longer wishes to pursue the matter. The Court established the principle that if the primary offence in a case is compoundable and the parties have resolved their dispute through a compromise, the accompanying minor offences should also be treated as compromised, even if they are technically non-compoundable under the statute. Consequently, the Court accepted the revision application, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the applicants.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a conviction for minor, non-compoundable offences be set aside if the parties have compromised the main offence?
  • Does an out-of-court compromise between parties justify the acquittal of the accused in a criminal revision?
  • Should minor offences be treated as compromised when the primary offence in the case is compoundable?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 337-H(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 506/2, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
criminal revisioncompromisecompoundable offencesacquittalconvictionout-of-court settlement

' KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMAD, J.---This revision application has directed against the judgment of learned II-Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Kashmore as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore who was pleased to uphold the order of learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Kashmore dated 10-6-2005 by his order dated 30-6-2005. Today both the applicants are present. Mr. Inayatullah Morio, Advocate for applicants states that the parties have compromised outside the Court and as such revision application may be allowed. Advocate for complainant Mr. Muhammad Saleem JN Jessar, is present. He confirms the statement made by learned Advocate for applicants.

2. The applicants were convicted under sections 452, 337-H(2), 506/2 and 148, P.P.C. The legal question is that certain offences are compoundable and certain offences are not compoundable. I am of the clear view that if the main offence is compoundable and parties have compromised against themselves then the small offences should be treated as compromised though under the statute those are not compoundable. In the present revision keeping in view the compromise which has taken place between the parties outside the Court, it is not proper to uphold the conviction specially when the complainant does not want to pursue his case anymore. In the circumstances I accept the revision application and order acquittal of both the applicants from the charge. Their conviction and sentence is set aside. They are present on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.

Cited by 16 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.