Hafeez Ullah, etc vs State, etc
The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Alipur, arising from a private complaint alleging illegal dispossession from land. During the hearing of the appeal, the complainant submitted an affidavit and expressed a desire to withdraw the complaint due to a compromise reached between the parties, stating that possession of the disputed land had been restored to him. The core legal question concerned the effect of a compromise and the withdrawal of a private complaint in proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Lahore High Court held that a complainant may withdraw a complaint on any consideration even if the offences are non-compoundable, relying on established precedent. Consequently, the Court allowed the withdrawal of the complaint and acquitted the appellants of the charge, ordering their immediate release unless required in other cases.
- Can a complainant withdraw a private complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 upon entering into a compromise?
- Whether the withdrawal of a complaint is permissible when the underlying offences are non-compoundable?
- What is the effect of a compromise between the parties on a conviction under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
- Section 3, Illegal Dispossession Act 2005
- Section 4, Illegal Dispossession Act 2005
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 248, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Hafeez Ullah and four others (accused/appellants) were fixed with the allegation of having illegally dispossessed the complainant from land measuring 3-kanal in Khata No. 229 situated at Mouza Mail Manjath, Tehsil Alipur, therefore, pursuant to a private complaint filed by Mureed Hussain complainant under (sections 3 and 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, on conclusion of trial ultimately vide judgment dated 04.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Alipur, all five on their conviction under section 3 of the Act, ibid, were sentenced to three years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/- each, in case of default to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment, in addition payment of compensation of Rs. 100,000;- each under section 544-A Cr.P.C. to the complainant. Further the SHO concerned was directed to hand over the possession of the alleged property to the complainant after taking over the same from accused/convicts within fifteen days, hence, the instant appeal.
2. Today, through CrI. Misc. No. 974/2024 the complainant present along with his learned counsel expressed the desire to withdraw the main complaint, root cause of above judgment of conviction and sentence, by alleging that the possession of the disputed land has been restored to him, therefore, he has effected compromise with the accused/appellants and wants to withdraw his complaint under section 248 of Cr.P.C. An affidavit of the complainant to that effect (MARK-A) has been placed on the record.
3. Heard.
4. This Court already has resolved the controversy that if the offences are non-compoundable then complainant can withdraw his complaint on any consideration, Reliance is placed on case reported as "Malik Muhammad Ejaz Channar versus The State, etc" (PLD 2022 Lahore 427).
5. As here in the instant case the parties have entered into compromise therefore, the complainant present before the Court states that he does not want to pursue the case anymore and opts to withdraw the complaint and in this respect, he has also submitted an affidavit, therefore, withdrawal of complaint is allowed in the circumstance and as a result whereof, appellants are acquitted of the charge. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Record of trial Court be returned immediately.