Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 302, 311 & 299(ee):Honour killing---Post-arrest bail---Inadmissibility of compromise by legal heirs---Scope--- Accused allegedly shot his real sister dead citing "ghairat" (honour) as the motive---Occurrence was witnessed by police officers on routine patrol, who entered the house upon hearing commotion and saw the accused committing the offence---Parents of the deceased did not file complaint nor became witnesses---Accused remained a fugitive for five months and the firearm was recovered upon arrest; a crime empty was secured earlier and sent for forensic analysis---Prosecution collected prima facie sufficient material linking the accused to the offence---Plea that the legal heirs had pardoned the accused on the basis of compromise was found to be of no legal consequence in view of Ss. 302(c), 311 & 299(ee), P.P.C., read with S. 345(2-A) & (7), Cr.P.C., which collectively establish that offences committed in the name of honour are to be treated as Qatl-i-Amd punishable with life imprisonment regardless of waiver or compounding by heirs---Such offences are classified as ‘fasad-fil-arz’ and cannot be compounded except under strict conditions to be determined by the Court.Muhammad Akram Khan v. The State PLD 2001 SC 96, Muhammad Qasim v. The State PLD 2018 SC 840, and Khadim Hussain v. The State PLD 2012 Balochistan 179 relied upon.(b) Constitution of Pakistan----Art. 9 & 8(1):Right to life---Honour killings---Customs and personal motives not overriding fundamental rights--- No individual is permitted under law or religion to take life in the name of "ghairat"---Honour killings constitute Qatl-i-Amd and violate the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Art. 9 of the Constitution---Any customary practice or usage seeking to justify such killings is void under Art. 8(1)---Judiciary has expressed grave concern over the misuse of honour as a pretext for violence, especially against women.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 497(1) & (2):Post-arrest bail---Further inquiry---Test of reasonable grounds---Applicability--- Contention of conflict between ocular account and medical evidence, i.e., exit wound being shown on the back, was held immaterial at bail stage in light of overwhelming evidence, including eyewitness account, forensic recovery, and the conduct of the accused---Principle of ‘further inquiry’ must be supported by notional or exploratory assessment raising genuine doubt, not vague possibility---In the instant case, reasonable grounds existed to believe that the accused committed a non-bailable offence falling within the prohibitory clause---Mere potential for contradiction at trial stage not sufficient to invoke S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.Ata-ullah v. The State 2014 SCMR 1210 and Mst. Parveen Akhtar v. The State 2002 SCMR 1886 discussed.(d) Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the Name or on Pretext of Honour) Act, 2016----Scope & effect:Statutory amendments curbing honour killings---Compoundability restricted---Punishment enhanced--- The 2016 Amendment Act introduced substantive changes in Ss. 299, 302 & 311, P.P.C., and S. 345, Cr.P.C., rendering offences committed in the name of honour non-compoundable under usual terms and mandating punishment of life imprisonment even if heirs waive qisas---Offences so committed fall within the definition of fasad-fil-arz and attract stricter sentencing guidelines.----Disposition: Bail Petition Dismissed.

Summary: Background: The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Sanghar, under Section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. He was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 10,000, with an additional three months of simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of the fine. The trial court also ordered the appellant to hand over possession of the disputed property to the complainant. The appellant was accused of criminally trespassing and forcibly dispossessing the complainant from his agricultural land on 30-11-2021. The complainant filed a complaint under Sections 3(2) and 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, alleging that the appellant, armed with a deadly weapon, forcibly dispossessed him from his land without any legal right. ----Issues: 1- Whether the conviction under Section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was justified. 2- Whether the compromise between the parties can lead to the appellant's acquittal despite the non-compoundable nature of the offence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Compromise Between Parties: The appellant and the complainant submitted applications for compromise under Sections 345(2) and 345(6) Cr.P.C. The appellant argued that he had already handed over the possession of the disputed property to the complainant, and they had settled their differences amicably. ---State's Position: The Additional Prosecutor General recorded no objection to the compromise. ---Court's Reasoning: The court acknowledged the compromise between the parties and noted that the complainant no longer wished to pursue the case. The court referred to several precedents where compromise in non-compoundable offences was recognized, emphasizing that maintaining peace and harmony between the parties was paramount. The court allowed the appeal based on the compromise between the parties. The impugned judgment dated 15-10-2022 was set aside to the extent of the appellant's conviction and sentence of incarceration and fine. The direction for handing over possession of the disputed property to the complainant was maintained. The appellant was acquitted of the charges by way of compromise, his bail bond was canceled, and the surety was discharged. ----Citations/Precedents: Akhter Hussain vs. SHO Sachal Karachi and 2 others (2020 P Cr L J Note 20) Un-reported order in Criminal Appeal No. S-46/2016 Re: Khamiso Khan alias Riaz vs. Babar Aftab Siyal and another Ijaz and another v. Mst. Manadia (PLD 2016 Pesh. 26) The State v. Irfanullah Qazi (2007 MLD 1269) Abdul Wali (Wali Khan) and 3 others v. Abdul Rashid Arif and 2 others (2013 P Cr. L J 767) Abdul Wahab and 3 others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Okara and 3 others (PLD 2012 Lah. 305) Hussain Bux and others v. The State (PLD 2003 Karachi 127 (DB)) Shahid v. The State and another (2017 YLR Note 81 [Lahore]) Ali Raza and another v. The State and another (PLD 2013 Lahore 651)

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellants were convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for the murder of an individual, as outlined in an FIR registered in 2018. The trial court sentenced each appellant to fourteen years of imprisonment and imposed monetary compensation. During the pendency of appeals, the appellants filed applications for release based on a compromise reached with most of the legal heirs of the deceased. The lower court confirmed that the compromise was incomplete, as some heirs did not agree to it. The matter was brought before the Lahore High Court for a final decision. -----Issues: 1- Whether the compromise between the appellants and the legal heirs of the deceased was complete and valid, allowing for the appellants' acquittal under Section 345 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). -----2- Whether the absence of consent from some heirs affects the validity of the compromise for the purpose of acquittal. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court ruled that, for cases under Ta’zir (discretionary punishment), only the immediate and direct legal heirs of the deceased are required to effect a compromise. Following the precedent set by the Supreme Court, siblings and other extended family members are not considered legal heirs for this purpose. As the primary heirs (widows, son, and daughters) had entered into a genuine and voluntary compromise, the court accepted the compromise and set aside the appellants' convictions. The appellants were acquitted and ordered to be released. -----Citations/Precedents Muhammad Yousaf vs. The State and others (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 461)

Summary: ---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ------ S.497--- The Emigration Ordinance, 1979--- Section 22--- The Prevention of smuggling of Migrants Act, 2018--- Section 3/6--- Section 345--- Compromise--- Non-Compoundable offence--- Complainant whose son was deceived and lured to be send to Canada appeared and submitted compromise deed stating that she has effected compromise and has no objection on release on bail of petitioner--- Section 345 has tabulated offence which may be compoundable---legislature has put a bar in respect of offences which cannot be compoundable by the parties, nor Court shall allow the composition of offences not mentioned in section 345 Cr.P.C--- due to current alarming situation of deceiving young generation on the pretexts of sending them abroad and demanding huge amounts from their parents by the agent mafias (human Traffickers) large number of young people are losing their lives in the hope of better future--- any leniency towards such elements would amount to encourage the evil of human trafficking ?petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail on fresh ground of compromise hence, petition is dismissed.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 345, 417 & 561-A---Compromise of case---Jurisdiction of High Court---Petitioners assailed final disposal of a matter on the basis of compromise---Petitioners claimed to be Wali and legal heirs of deceased but for reasons known to deceased party and notables, they were neither made party to the compromise nor any thing was brought on record regarding all surviving legal heirs of the deceased---Contention of petitioners was that their mother was illiterate lady who was not properly represented in the compromise as well as before Trial Court and petitioners were minors, who were unaware about the fact of the murder of their late father and acceptance of the compromise, which was only arrived at between the widow of deceased and respondent---Validity---As per photocopies of CNICs of petitioners issued by NADRA authorities petitioners were minors at the time of filing of petition---There was nothing on record to show the circumstances, which compelled widow of deceased and respondents not to disclose their names at the time of compromise---Such fact also escaped from the notice of Trial Court---It was not possible for High Court to re-open the case on merits in exercise of power conferred under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C., that too, after lapse of more than ten (10) years---Petitioners were at liberty to avail remedy under S. 417, Cr.P.C. by following the law with legal exceptions---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Ghulam Farid alias Farida v. the State PLD 2006 SC 53 rel.

Summary: Background: The appellant, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Quetta, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for the murders of Sohail Ahmed and Mumtaz Ahmed. He was sentenced to death on two counts and also convicted under Section 324 of the PPC for causing firearm injuries to Watan Yar and Shano Begum, receiving additional sentences for each injury. The appellant challenged this conviction, while a murder reference for the confirmation of his death sentence was also before the court. Additionally, a compromise application under Section 345 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was filed by Shano Begum, one of the injured victims and the mother of the deceased. -----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant’s conviction for murder and firearm injuries was supported by sufficient evidence. -----2- Whether the death penalty was justified given the circumstances of the case. -----3- Whether the compromise application submitted by one of the injured victims could affect the outcome of the case. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court upheld the appellant’s conviction for the murders and firearm injuries. However, it reduced his sentence from capital punishment (death penalty) to rigorous imprisonment for life, citing the family dispute, the suddenness of the quarrel, and the lack of premeditation. The court reasoned that while the appellant was guilty, the death sentence would further increase the sorrow within the grieving family. The court also partially accepted the compromise application filed by Shano Begum, reducing the sentence for causing her injuries under Section 324, PPC. However, the compromise did not extend to other legal heirs of the deceased, such as their wives and children, who had not pardoned the appellant. -----Citations/Precedents: Section 345, Cr.P.C. – Allows for the acceptance of a compromise in certain criminal cases, but only with the consent of all legal heirs. Tariq Pervaiz v. The State, 1995 SCMR 1345 – Benefit of doubt to the accused based on reasonable doubt.

Summary: The appellant, Muhammad Tariq, filed the case against eight respondents alleging that they trespassed into a house and caused injury to the appellant. During the proceedings, the appellant submitted an affidavit at the bail stage and made statements before the Magistrate indicating a compromise with the respondents. However, the trial court accepted an application filed by the respondents under section 249-A Cr.P.C., based on statements made by the complainant during bail and remand stages, without issuing notice to the appellant. The appeal raises important legal questions regarding the validity of acquitting the accused solely based on statements made during pre-trial stages and whether a person can be acquitted in a non-compoundable offense on the grounds of compromise. The judgment discusses the legal framework concerning the compounding of offenses under section 345 Cr.P.C., distinguishing between compoundable offenses and non-compoundable offenses. It emphasizes that offenses under section 337-A PPC fall under the category of offenses requiring court permission for compounding. Legal precedents such as Tariq Mehmood's Case and Muhammad Akram's Case are cited to illustrate that compromises made during pre-trial stages cannot be accepted without court permission when the prosecution is pending. Furthermore, the judgment highlights the legislative intent behind the bifurcation of compoundable offenses and underscores the need for courts to ensure the genuineness and validity of compromises, particularly in cases involving societal interests or heinous offenses. The judgment concludes that the trial court erred in acquitting the respondents based on compromised statements made during pre-trial stages and sets aside the acquittal order, remanding the matter for further trial proceedings in accordance with the law. The judgment also emphasizes established legal principles regarding appeals against acquittals, stating that while appellate courts generally refrain from disturbing acquittal orders, they may intervene if the order is patently illegal or based on erroneous considerations.

Summary: Criminal Trial (Compromise u/s 345(6) Cr.P.C )The offence is compoundable one. The parties have entered into compromise, on intervention of their nekmards, which appears to be true and voluntarily. In these circumstances, the compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. Consequently, the appellants areacquitted of the offence u/s 345(6) Cr.P.C, for which they have been charged, tried and convicted by learned trial court.

Summary: The petitioner has challenged the validity of two court orders: which allowed the complainant's application under Section 497(5) Cr.P.C to recall/set aside the bail granted to the petitioner, and another dated 10.02.2021, which dismissed the petitioner's revision petition. These orders led to the cancellation of the petitioner's post-arrest bail, which was granted based on a compromise, in a case registered under Section 489-F PPC. The petitioner allegedly issued a cheque to the complainant to fulfill a financial obligation but failed to ensure its payment, resulting in its dishonor by the bank. Despite a compromise with the complainant, the petitioner did not fulfill the terms of the agreement, leading to the complainant's application for bail cancellation. The petitioner argued that once bail was granted, it cannot be subjected to conditions, citing legal precedents. Jehanzeb Khan Vs. The State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2020 SCMR 1268): This case likely deals with issues related to the conditions and terms of bail orders and the authority of the court to impose conditions on bail. Salman Khalid Vs. The State (PLD 2020 Lahore 97): This case appears to address the misuse of bail concessions and the consequences of breaching the terms of compromise agreements made during bail proceedings. Sami Ullah and another Vs. Laiq Zada and another (2020 SCMR 1115): This case likely provides principles or guidelines for the cancellation or recall of bail, such as when bail orders are patently illegal, when there's misuse of bail, when there's interference with prosecution evidence, and other relevant factors. Tariq Mehmood Vs. Naseer Ahmed and others (PLD 2016 SC 347): This case likely explains the provisions of Section 345(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) regarding the compounding of offenses without the intervention of the court, and it may provide guidance on when compromises between parties can be accepted by the court.However, the prosecutor contended that the petitioner's misuse of bail disentitled him from its further enjoyment, supported by legal precedents. The court discussed the compoundability of the offense under Section 345 Cr.P.C, distinguishing between cases where court permission is required for compounding and where it is not. It emphasized the importance of examining the genuineness of compromises in bail matters. The court concluded that the petitioner's failure to honor the compromise terms amounted to bail misuse, justifying the cancellation of bail. It upheld the lower courts' decisions, citing grounds for bail cancellation outlined in legal precedents. Consequently, the petitioner's petition was dismissed.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background:The petitioner was convicted under section 302 (b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (?PPC?) for the murder of Zahir Mehmood and sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi. The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to life imprisonment. Subsequently, an application for compromise was submitted by the complainant, stating that the legal heirs of the deceased had forgiven the convict. The court was asked to determine the veracity of this forgiveness.---Issues:Whether the acceptance of the compromise would result in the setting aside of the petitioner's conviction and acquittal.Whether Islamic law and legal provisions mandate the automatic acquittal of a convict upon acceptance of forgiveness by the victim's heirs.---Holding/Reasoning:The court examined the relevant provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly sections 345 and 338-E. It observed that while the acceptance of a compromise under section 345(6) of the Code leads to the effect of an acquittal, it does not explicitly mandate the setting aside of the conviction. Additionally, the court considered Islamic principles regarding forgiveness and found that forgiveness does not erase the crime but only withholds punishment. Drawing from legal precedents in Commonwealth countries and the USA, the court concluded that a pardon or forgiveness does not eliminate the conviction itself but only removes the penalties and punishments associated with it. Therefore, the court held that the petitioner's conviction should not be set aside but he should be acquitted from the charge.---Citations/Precedents:Chairman Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan v. Mumtaz Khan (PLD 2010 SC 695)Ex Parte A. H. Garland, 71 US 333Burdick v. United States, 236 U. S. 79Cook v. Freeholders of Middlesex, 2 Dutch. (N. J.) 326Rex v. Cosgrove, [1984] Tas. S. R. 99In re Royal Commission on Thomas Case, [1980] 1 N.Z.L.R. 602