M. INAYAT vs FAYYAZ AHMED and others
The appellant-complainant filed an appeal against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge-I/Judge Special Court, Hafizabad, whereby respondents 1 to 3 were acquitted of charges under sections 324, 337, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the acquittal based on a compromise verified by the complainant himself was legally sustainable, and whether the subsequent allegation of coercion could invalidate the compromise. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court committed no illegality in acquitting the respondents, noting that the appellant had voluntarily sworn an affidavit of compromise, verified it in court, and that the State had offered no objection to the acquittal. The court ruled that the appellant's belated plea of coercion was an afterthought based on greed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine with special costs, establishing the principle that a litigant cannot resile from a verified compromise without legitimate, contemporaneous proof of coercion.
- Whether an accused can be acquitted on the basis of a compromise verified by the complainant in court?
- Can a complainant subsequently challenge a compromise affidavit by alleging coercion without timely contemporaneous proof?
- Whether an appeal against acquittal based on a verified compromise is maintainable when the State has raised no objection?
- Can a court impose special costs on a litigant for filing a meritless appeal based on afterthought allegations?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---Appellant-complainant has filed this appeal against the order, dated 13-11-2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I/Judge Special Court, Hafizabad whereby respondents 1 to 3 were acquitted of the charge under sections 324/337/148/149 and 109, P.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his appeal submits that respondents were named in the F.I.R., no notice was given to the appellant-complainant when application either under section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. Was moved and that the affidavit dated 13-10-1996 was procured by the respondents under coercion and in the affidavit filed later in 1999 it was stated that the affidavit dated 13-10-1996 was got signed under coercion.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at great length and have minutely gone through the impugned order. It is noteworthy that the appellant himself swore an affidavit stating therein that he had entered into a compromise with the respondents-accused. He compounded the offence and stated that he had no interest in pursuing the case. He himself appeared in the Court and verified the affidavit, dated 13-10-1996 on the day when the respondents were allowed bail. When application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Was submitted notice was given to the State in response of which the learned DDA wrote no objection in acquittal due to compromise. The order impugned was passed seeking guidance from a decision of the apex Court reported as 1998 SCM R
466. In these circumstances, we do not find any illegality having been committed by the learned trial Court with the result that this appeal being meritless is dismissed in limine. The conduct of the appellants in the instant case is deplorable. He on the one hand swore an affidavit and appeared before the Court to verify the contents of the same and on the other hand he alleged to be a victim of coercion. This is all after thought and perhaps is based on greed. The Court has not to play in the hands of unscrupulous litigants but has to apply its independent mind and follow the law on the subject. In a way, the appellant has tried to dub this proceedings of the Court based on coercion. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed with special costs of Rs,10,000 to be paid within 10 days from today, in default the appellant shall be taken into custody and will serve one month's R.I.