Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1350 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Ashiq Ali vs State S

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

Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1350 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Ashiq Ali VS State S. 3---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 345(2) & 345(6)---Prevention of illegal possession of property---Appreciation of evidence---Compromise---Scope---Accused were charged for occupying the property of complainant illegally in his absence---Complainant filed applications under Ss. 345(2) & 345(6), Cr.P.C with the submission that possession of the disputed property had been restored to him, therefore, he with the core of his heart had forgiven the accused "AA" and he had no objection if the said accused was acquitted of the charge---Since, the complainant had entered into compromise with main co-accused "AA" and the possession of disputed property had also been restored to him; hence, the case of co-appellant was at par and conviction could not be maintained more particularly when on identical charge, co-accused had been acquitted by way of compromise; besides, possession of the disputed property had been restored to the complainant---Admittedly, complainant as well as appellant "AA" had amicably settled all their differences and agreed to pass rest of their lives in peace, tranquility and harmony---Non-compound- ability of a particular offence under any section of the enactment should not be read in isolation but it should be read in the background of each criminal case and beneficial interpretation should be given to it---In present case, though the possession of the disputed property had been handed over/restored to the complainant yet he had entered into compromise with only appellant "AA" however, had not compromised with co-appellant---As far as, case of co-appellant was concerned, no different charge was framed against him nor any specific allegation regarding dispossessing the complainant from the particular property had been leveled against him---In such state of affairs, case of co-appellant could not be bifurcated or separated---Appeal against conviction of co-appellant was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1350 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Ashiq Ali vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 1350 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ