Soofi ABDUL QADIR vs ANWAR alias PAPOO and 7 others
This criminal revision application assails the order dated 13-10-1999 passed by the III-Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur, whereby the direct complaint filed by the applicant under sections 220 and 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code was dismissed after a preliminary enquiry. The core legal question was whether a trial court can dismiss a direct complaint without assigning valid reasons. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned order was legally unsustainable as it lacked proper reasoning, which is a pre-requisite condition for judicial orders. The Court laid down the principle that judicial orders must contain cogent reasons that appeal to a reasonable and prudent mind. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for a fresh, reasoned decision in accordance with law.
- Is it mandatory for a trial court to assign reasons when dismissing a direct complaint after a preliminary enquiry?
- What is the remedy available against an unreasoned order dismissing a criminal complaint?
- Can an appellate or revisional court remand a matter back to the trial court for a fresh decision when the initial order lacks proper reasoning?
- Section 220, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 500, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
1. ' By this criminal revision application, the applicant Soofi Abdul Qadir has assailed the order, dated 13-10-1999 passed by the learned III-Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that the applicant/complainant filed direct complaint under section 220, 500, P.P.C. The learned III-Additional Sessions Judge after holding preliminary enquiry, dismissed the complaint by impugned order.
3. ' I have heard the applicant and Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar, learned Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh on behalf of the State. The latter concedes to the prayer of the applicant/complainant and do not support the impugned order. .
4. The perusal of the impugned order shows that no reasons have been assigned by the learned trial Court while dismissing the complaint which is a pre-requisite condition. The reasons must be such which could appeal to a reasonable and prudent mind. The same are lacking in the impugned order.
5. ' Consequently, the revision application is allowed. The case is remanded to the learned trial Court to hold further enquiry into complaint and pass a legal and appropriate order assigning reasons in accordance with law, after examining the record and evidence and hearing the applicant/complainant.
6. ' With these observations, the revision application stands disposed of.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD PANJAL vs GHULAM SHABIR JAT and 6 others 2004 YLR 967