ARSHAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SULEMAN Ss — 2022 PCrLJ 392 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ARSHAD KHAN VS MUHAMMAD SULEMAN Ss. 302 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 345 ---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Compounding of offences---Scope---Complainant lodged FIR against the petitioners for committing murder of his daughter---Parties, during the trial, moved application under S. 345, Cr.P.C., along with compromise deed and stated that they have amicably settled the matter outside the court---Father and mother of deceased appeared before the Trial Court and while confirming the contents of the compromise deed, stated that they had pardoned the accused/petitioners in the name of Al-mighty Allah and had waived their right of qisas---Both the legal heirs of deceased stated that the deceased was having two children from her ex-husband, a girl aged about 12 years and a boy aged about 11 years; however, they did not know whereabouts of their grandchildren---Consequently the Investigating Officer and complainant was called, who deposed that they did not know the whereabouts of the children of deceased---Trial Court had kept the case adjourned for almost six months but the children of deceased did not appear and finally accepted the compromise vide impugned orders---In respect of diyat amount of minors the accused persons were directed either to deposit amount of diyat for minors amounting to Rs.13,70,500/- or to submit surety/ security bond for a period of five years equal to diyat amount---Petitioners being aggrieved of the impugned orders in respect of diyat amount filed the present petition---Validity---Record depicted that the legal heirs of deceased submitted the compromise deed voluntarily---Complainant/father of deceased and mother of deceased appeared before the Trial Court and recorded their statements in presence of petitioners and their counsel, wherein they categorically narrated the names of minor legal heirs of deceased---On the basis of their statements, the Trial Court passed the order directing the accused to submit surety/security in lieu of diyat amount of minors or to deposit total diyat amount i.e. 1370,500---Petitioners had not objected the diyat amount, whereupon finally the Trial Court acquitted the petitioners through final order---Principle of estoppel under Art. 114 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 came into play---Petitioners neither raised objection before the Trial Court nor filed any appeal against the orders of the Trial Court---Compromise was effected with the permission of the court, thereafter, the Trial Court acquitted the accused---Admittedly, the compromise attained finality---Accused/petitioners had no right to detract from the compromise---Once the compromise was effected, the accused or complainant were not allowed to resile from the same---Petitioners contended that if the court set-aside the order to the extent of submission of surety/security and exclude the minors from the legal heirs then they had no objection in respect of compromise---Law did not allow pick and choose in the order/document nor the portion which favoured would be accepted and the portion which did not favour would be rejected---Court could not exclude the legal heirs of a deceased from their shares in diyat amount, rather the minor orphans needing more care could not be deprived from their rights---Since the petitioners were acquitted on the basis of compromise, they could challenge the share of minors---Revision was dismissed accordingly. Head NotesCase Description

ARSHAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SULEMAN Ss — 2022 PCrLJ 392 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 PCRLJ