2008 PLP 2325 (YLR)

ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.

This Criminal Revision Application under section 435 read with section 436, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 25-1-2007, passed by IVth-Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in direct complaint No.75 of 2006 whereby it was dismissed.

2. Mr. Hidayatullah Abbasi, learned counsel for the applicant making reference to the relevant facts of the case has contented th2it the impugned order passed by the Court of IVth-Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, thereby dismissing the direct complaint of the applicant in a slipshod manner, is based on wrong premises. In this regard he made reference to the concluding paragraph of the impugned order to show that the trial Court had wrongly shifted burden of proof about the admitted allegations levelled against the applicant by the opposite party on the applicant, which was against all judicial norms. He therefore, contended that the impugned order may be set aside with directions to the trial Court to proceed further with the direct, complaint in accordance with law.

3. Mr. Anwar H. Ansari, Advocate for the State, after going through the contents of the impugned order did not support it and conceded to the proposal of Mr. Abbasi that the impugned order may be set aside with directions to the trial Court to proceed further with the direct complaint of the applicant in accordance with law.

4. I have considered the submissions made before me by the learned counsel and perused the case record, which goes to show that the trial Court Judge while passing the impugned order has not taken into account the relevant admitted facts of the case and recorded reasons for dismissal of direct complaint which are not warranted by law. Filing of certified true copy of the counter-affidavit containing (para-17) allegations against the complainant which formed basis for filing of direct complaint by him, were sufficient to examine the merits of the grievance of the complainant and in such circumstances, passing of impugned order in a slipshod manner, cannot be approved.

5. As a result of above discussion, this criminal revision application is allowed. Impugned order is set aside with directions to the trial Court to proceed further with the direct complaint in accordance with law.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the attitude of the Presiding Officer of the trial Court towards him is biased and unfair, therefore, for further proceedings in the direct complaint, it should be sent/transferred to any other Court of Additional Sessions Judge or District Judge, Hyderabad. For this purpose the applicant may approach the proper forum. H.B.T./M-83/K Application allowed.