Muhammad Umar Qazzafi vs The State
This criminal appeal challenged a conviction under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, where the appellant had been sentenced to five years imprisonment and a fine for illegal dispossession. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. The complainant confirmed that the disputed property had been restored to his possession and that he had voluntarily forgiven the appellant, expressing no desire to pursue the prosecution further. The appellant also undertook to maintain peace and harmony. The Deputy Prosecutor General, relying on established case law, offered no objection to the compromise. The Court, satisfied that the compromise was genuine, lawful, and free from coercion, accepted the applications filed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the Court allowed the compromise, acquitted the appellant of the charges, and discharged his bail bonds. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where parties have amicably resolved their dispute and the complainant voluntarily forgives the accused, the court may allow a compromise to dispose of criminal proceedings.
- Can an appellate court acquit an appellant based on a compromise reached between the parties during the pendency of an appeal?
- Is a conviction under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 subject to acquittal upon a voluntary compromise between the complainant and the accused?
- Does the restoration of possession of the disputed property to the complainant constitute a valid ground for accepting a compromise in a criminal case?
- Section 265-H(ii), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 3(ii), Illegal Dispossession Act 2005
- Section 345(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 345(6), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J:- Through instant Criminal Appeal, appellant Muhammad Umer Qazzafi has assailed the judgment dated 10.11.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- VIII, Karachi (West) in I.D Complaint No.46 of 2016 (Re: Muhammad Salman v. Muhammad Umar Qazafi) whereby he has been convicted under Section 265-H(ii) Cr.P.C read with Section 3(ii) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 05 years and to pay fine of Rs.500,000/- to be paid to complainant, in default of which, to suffer R.I for six months more.
2. During pendency of instant appeal, both parties have compromised the matter outside the Court and in this regard they have filed applications under Sections 345(2) & 345(6) Cr.P.C alongwith respective Affidavits before the Court; taken on record. Accordingly, office shall assign numbers to these applications. However, the contents of such Affidavits are affirmed by them.
3. Mr. Muhammad Anees, Advocate files his Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, taken on record. He submits that property in dispute has been handed over to the complainant; therefore, the complainant with core of his heart has forgiven the appellant; hence, they have filed compromise applications jointly and does not want to prosecute the appellant anymore. Learned Counsel for complainant; however, under instructions records no objection if these applications are allowed and appellant is acquitted of the charge.
4. The appellant, who is present in person on bail, also submit that he has already put the complainant under peaceful and vacant possession of the land in suit and further he will not take law in his hands and will maintain harmony, peace and tranquility in the area. Hence, he submits that by granting compromise applications the appeal may be disposed of and he may be acquitted of the charges.
5. Learned Deputy P.G Sindh present in Court waives notice of the applications and while placing his reliance upon the case of AKHTER HUSSAIN v. STATION HOUSE OFFICER SACHAL KARAHI and 02 others reported in 2020 P.Cr.LJ Note 20, records his no objection, if applications are granted.
6. Since the possession of land in dispute has been handed over to complainant; therefore, the complainant does not want to prosecute the appellant anymore; hence, he has entered into compromise with the appellant voluntarily and has raised no objection for grant of these applications as well disposal of the appeal accordingly. Learned Deputy P.G has also extended his no objection.
7. In view of above, it is observed that compromise entered into between the parties appears to be genuine, lawful and without any pressure or coercion from any side and that complainant has voluntarily forgiven the appellant / accused. Therefore, keeping in view the cordial relations between the parties in future, the compromise application under Section 345(2) Cr.P.C is hereby granted and application under Section 346(6) Cr.P.C is accepted. The appellant is acquitted of the charges by way of compromise. He is present on bail; his bail bonds stand cancelled and surety is hereby discharged.
Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.