IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,
Under sub-section (2) of section 345 Cr.P.C. the offences mentioned in the first two columns given in the said section may, with the permission of the Court before whom any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column given thereunder. Legally speaking such a compromise effected at bail stage, cannot be made basis for acquittal of the accused during trial as under section 345 (2) Cr.P.C. it would be the Trial Court which has to satisfy itself and grant permission in respect of compounding the offence being tried by it. The important point for consideration in cases of compromise is the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court about the genuineness of the compromise that whether it had been actually effected between the parties at bail stage. I am conscious of the fact that under section 345 (2) Cr.P.C. pendency of prosecution of the offence before the learned Trial Court at the time of compromise is a condition precedent, but in the interest of justice keeping in view the traditions, customs and the way of earning livelihood of the people in the country, I would added that the Trial Court may consider the same compromise arrived at between the parties at bail stage during trial, if the *M.Siraj Afridi P.S. D compromise is still intact and victims or the LRs of the deceased as the case may be, have no objection over the compromise produced at bail stage, as this court has observed that after effecting compromise at bail stage, the male victims/ LRs of the deceased, sometime proceed abroad for the purpose of earning livelihood while in case of unmarried females injured/ LRs, if they get married,their attendance create complications/unnecessary hurdle in the way of compromise already effected and this sometime even result in dismissal of the compromise
between the parties effected with great efforts by the elders of the area by burying the hatchets of the parties. However, if the learned Trial Court is not satisfied from the compromise arrived at between the parties at bail stage, it may proceed with the compromise afresh. As stated earlier, the main point for consideration in such like cases is always the satisfaction of the Trial Court in the interest of justice and the parties, before whom the prosecution of the offence is pending. 9. In the instant case, though the injured had effected compromise with the accused at bail stage, but during prosecution of the offence before the learned Trial Court, they resiled, therefore, the learned Trial Court being not satisfied from the compromise, was justified by not *M.Siraj Afridi P.S. D considering the compromise for acquittal of the accusedrespondents. The learned revisional Court by over-sighting the above discussed peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the law on the subject, landed in the field of error and thus reached to erroneous conclusion by acquitting the
accused under section 249-A Cr.P.C. on the basis of compromise. 9. Resultantly, I by allowing this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Revisional Court and restored the order/judgment of the learned Trial Court. The case is remanded to the learned Trial Court for proceeding with the same on merits. Since, some of the prosecution evidence has already been recorded, therefore, the learned Trial Court by proceeding with the case on day to day basis, shall decide the same within a month, from the date of receipt of the record. During this period, the accused/respondents shall remain on bail on the already existing bail bonds. Office is directed to send the record to the learned Trial Court within two days, without fail.