Rana AWAIS and others vs S.H.O., POLICE STATION PEOPLE'S COLONY, FAISALABAD and others

ORDER

ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J.--- This is a petition under section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. Asking for the quashment of F.I.R. Bearing No,311, dated 29-5-2000 lodged under sections 324, 337-H(ii), 148, 149 and 427, P.P.C., at Police Station Peoples Colony, Faisalabad. On the sole ground that as the offences involved therein were compoundable under the law and A had been actually compounded by the complainant. Therefore, the police could not proceed any further under the law. By which it was meant that the police had been rendered incapable of submitting the challan before the trial Court on the basis of this compromise.

2. Admittedly, no compromise has taken place before a Court of law. But only during the stage of investigation and before the police.

3. Section 345 of the Cr.P.C. Which relates to compounding of offences, reflects two tables with three columns each. The relevant table for purposes of disposal of the present proposition, is table "2" given under section 345(2) of the Cr.P.C. According to section 345(2) of the Cr.P.C., the offences so mentioned under this table were compoundable only with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offences was pending. The three columns of this table speak of: (a) nature of offence, (b) the corresponding section of the Pakistan Penal Code, and (c) the person with whom the compounding of the offence was possible.

4. A careful perusal of section 345(2) of the Cr.P.C. Shows that sections 324 and 337-H are included in table "2" of this section. Whereas, one finds that the offence under section 427, P.P.C. Is reflected in the first table to section 345 of the Cr.P.C. Where the requirement of Court's intervention for a compromise has not been mentioned.

5. Obviously, when some offences are given in table "1" and table "2", these can only be compounded once a matter is placed before a Court and this is to be done through the submission of a report under section 173 of the Cr. P.C.

6. The prosecution, therefore, must be pending before a composition can be allowed. Therefore, any arrangement between the parties before the prosecution of the case having started, is an ineffective compromise, And it remains suspended until a Court sanctions it.

7. This Court as far back as in 1928 in the case of Naurang Rai v. Kidar Nath and another 29 Criminal Law Journal 1928, had observed that cases falling under section 345(2) of the Cr.P.C. Were compoundable only with the permission of the Court and not otherwise. In the case of M.S. Ponnuswa my Ayyar, 39 Criminal Law Journal 1938, it was observed that for compounding a case covered within the ambit of section 345(2) of the Cr.P.C., permission of the Court is required before the composition can take place. In the following cases as well, it had been observed that in cases governed by subsection (2) of section 345 of the Cr.P.C., no effect can be given to a compromise unless the Court had sanctioned the compromise. These cases are AIR 1937 Mad. 825; AIR 1968 All.

394 and AIR 1956 Nag.

161.

8. Law also casts a duty on a Magistrate or a Sessions Court empowered to sanction a composition to decide whether or not the Court should allow the compromise. In this connection, reference may be made to AIR 1956 Nag. 161 and AIR 1937 Nag.

114. It has also been held that while granting permission, the Court should exercise a sound and reasonable discretion and that permission is not to be granted as a matter of course. In this connection, reference may be made to AIR 1966 Mysore 53.

9. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner was of the view that the composition of offences covered under section 345 of the Cr.P.C. Could be done at the police stage. This is possible only in cases falling under section 345(1) and not under section 345(2) of the Cr.P.C. Law was careful in not allowing composition outside the Court in serious cases covered under section 345(2) of the Cr.P.C.

10. The purpose of law being on one hand to ensure voluntary composition and on the other to keep Investigating Authorities at arm's length in doing such acts which in the administration of justice, the Courts alone are called upon to decide.

11. The upshot of the above discussion is that all cases falling under section 345(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Can only be compounded when a prosecution regarding those cases was pending before a competent trial Court and any compromise outside the Court has not to be given any value until it has been sanctioned by a Court as envisaged in column No,3 of section 345(2) of the Cr.P.C.

12. The police in this case, therefore, can proceed further with the matter while placing the challan before the trial Court which will then be the stage for asking permission for the compromise. This petition, therefore, has no merits. It is dismissed.