GHULAM ABBAS DEHRAJ vs State S — 2026 PLD 160 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

GHULAM ABBAS DEHRAJ VS State S. 528---Transfer of criminal case---Grounds---Persistent suggestion of Judicial Officer to settle/compromise not a ground for transfer of case---Accused/petitioner moved an application for the transfer of criminal case from the Trial Court, which was allowed and case was transferred to other Court---Validity---In the transfer application, it was mentioned that the complainant lodged false FIR against accused/petitioner in which accused was continuously facing the trial, however the Presiding Officer continuously was forcing the applicant/accused to compromise with the complainant and the complainant party also loudly spoke in the area that they would get the decision in their favour, as the complainant party had visiting and dining terms with the Presiding Officer, therefore, the applicant/accused had lost his faith and trust upon the Trial Court---First ground in the Criminal Transfer Application, which the applicant had subsequently withdrawn, alleged that the Judicial Officer impressed on the parties to enter into a compromise---Such apprehension of accused alone did not articulate evidence of any diversion from the requirement of fair trial and due process on the part of the Judicial Officer---While habitual or repeated diversion from the principles of a fair trial and due process on the part of the Court might trigger apotential cause for transferring a case from one Court to another, there was no such instance---Persistent suggestions, on the part of a Judicial Officer, to the parties to settle the matter out of Court or to enter into a compromise alone did not favour either party---Applicant/complainant and the accused had a family history of discord, distrust and alleged violence between them---In the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents available on record, the alleged repeated suggestions from the Judicial Officer to bring to an end the cycle of hostilities between the parties by way of a compromise were no grounds for claiming bias or prejudice and consequently transferring the case---Once the accused withdrew the first ground, the only ground left for the consideration of the Sessions Court to grant the said application was the second ground that merely stated that accused apprehended danger of injustice in the trial at the hands of the Trial Court, therefore, accused contended that in the interest of justice, Criminal Case should be transferred to any other Court---Said plea, again, was a mere assertion---Mere apprehension of an adverse judicial order does not constitute a sufficient ground justifying the transfer of a case from the Trial Court---Indeed, if such apprehensions and surmises about the judicial process are to be accepted in a routine manner, then it may well make any and all judicial proceedings a never-ending exercise stuck in a vortex of transfer from one Court to the next---With no end to the fear of losing in litigation - a zero-sum game, i.e., fear on the part of either party in a litigation that it may win or lose - parties could not be facilitated by Court to act on such fears by accepting applications to transfer their cases from one Court to another based on the mere perception that the judicial decision from the Court may not be to their liking---While a reasonable apprehension, supported by cogent and logical arguments demonstrating bias or prejudice on the part of the Judicial Officer, can provide sufficient cause to seek the transfer of a case, such approach too must be balanced in the context of creating a fair, impartial, safe and transparent environment for Judicial Officers to administer justice---Vague and casual allegation in the second ground of the Crl. Transfer Application without adequate proof, which was conspicuously lacking, could not be sustained as asufficient cause for the transfer of the case---Mere apprehension of unfair treatment cannot be a ground for the transfer of acase unless any material or circumstance supports it---Moreover, High Court had also weighed the consequences of the potential transfer of the case back to the original Court and found that no prejudice would be caused---Criminal revision was allowed, accordingly.

GHULAM ABBAS DEHRAJ vs State S — 2026 PLD 160 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD