IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Appeal
No.629 of 2022
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
1.
For orders on M.A. No.14276/2024
2.
For orders on M.A. No.2821/2023
3. For
hearing of main case
--------------------------------
18.03.2025
Mr. Akhtar Hakeem Kalwar, advocate
for appellants
Ms. Seema Zaidi, Additional
Prosecutor General Sindh
Syed Mureed Ali Shah, advocate for
respondent
--------------------------------------
Appellants Zaheer, Noor
Ahmed, Aziz and Nazir all sons of Ghulam Qadir have impugned the judgment dated
28.10.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujawal in Illegal
Dispossession Complaint No.05/2021 (Qaim
ALi Shah Sheerazi versus Zaheer & Others). After full dressed trial,
appellants were convicted and sentenced to 7 years R.I. and to pay fine
Rs.50,000/- jointly as compensation to the complainant, in default whereof to
undergo S.I. for six months.
2. During
pendency of appeal, parties have entered into compromise and have filed
applications under Section 345(5)&(6), Cr.PC, duly signed by appellants,
complainant/respondent and their respective counsel along with supporting
affidavits of complainant Qaim Ali Shah Sheerazi and appellants.
3. Learned counsel for
appellants submits that peaceful and vacant possession of disputed property has
already been handed over to complainant; that in identical case reported in
2025 PCr.LJ 183 (Walliullah Shah Mashwani
versus Muhammad Usman Brohi and another) this Court has already allowed
compromise application on the ground that parties have settled their dispute
outside the Court and possession has been handed over to complainant, as such,
compromise applications may be allowed and the appellants may be acquitted of
the charge.
4. Learned counsel for
complainant admitted this position and recorded no objection for allowing
application(s) and acquittal of the appellants. Learned Additional Prosecutor
General Sindh has also recorded no objection for allowing the applications and
acquittal of appellants.
5. Joint applications for compromise under Section 345(5)&(6),
Cr.PC were filed by appellants and complainant along with their supporting
affidavits, which reveals that they have entered into compromise and resolved
the issue and handed over the peaceful vacant possession of property to the
complainant and do not want to proceed further with the instant appeal on
merits. This Court in the case of Walliullah Shah Mashwani vs. Muhammad Usman
Brohi and another (2025 PCr.LJ 183) has allowed the application and the facts
of the instant appeal are identical to that case whereby it has been observed
as under:
“13. It
is recognized that parties to a dispute may reach an amicable resolution,
signifying their commitment to co-exist in peace, tranquillity, and harmony.
This principle reflects the legal philosophy that encourages the settlement of
disputes through mutual agreement, thereby promoting social stability and
reducing the burden on the judicial system. In relation to the
non-compoundability of specific offences, it is critical to interpret such
provisions within the context of individual cases. Legal precedents suggest
that a beneficial interpretation of statutory provisions should be favoured,
allowing courts to consider in accordance with the facts and circumstances of
each case rather than applying a rigid interpretation. This approach aligns
with the broader legal philosophy of justice and equity, emphasizing that the
spirit of the law should guide judicial outcomes to foster reconciliation and
uphold community harmony.”
6. In view of
above, applications under Section 345(5)&(6), Cr.PC are allowed, conviction
and sentence awarded to appellants are set aside and the appellants are
acquitted of the charge by way of compromise. They are present on bail, their bail
bonds are cancelled and surety discharged.
7. Instant criminal appeal
is disposed of the above terms.
J U D G E
Gulsher/PS