' SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.---Through the captioned criminal revision application, applicant Mst.
Sahibzadi Jahan Ara has impugned order dated 10.07.2014, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karachi South, whereby criminal transfer application bearing No. 28 of 2014, filed by the applicant was declined.
2. Relevant facts spelt out from instant criminal revision application are that the applicant along with her family, is residing as tenant in premises bearing No.113/2, Line No.6, Khayaban-e-Rahat, Phase-VII, D.H.A, Karachi, at first- floor, which is owned by Mrs. Sarwat Imran wife of the respondent No.2. The landlady and her husband, the respondent No.2 are also residing at first floor of the said premises. It is further averred that on 10.07.2013, the respondent No.2 intentionally parked his car behind the car of Shahzad Ghori, the son in law of the applicant, whereupon the door of the house of the respondent No.2 was knocked as to remove his car and respondent Mohammad Imran and Mrs. Sarwat Imran opened the door, while the applicant was also present there and they used abusive language. On intervention of the applicant, they both insulted her and Mohammad Imran started beating with fists below to Shahzad Ghori, who sustained injured on his little finger. The applicant took Shahzad for medical treatment to hospital and then went to lodge the report but did not lodge the FIR. The applicant filed application under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Which was allowed by the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, and Police lodged FIR bearing No.350/2013, under section 337-F(v), P. P. C .
3. It is further averred that on the false report of process server the trial Court stopped the proceedings of the case on 28.03.2014, under Section 249, Cr.P.C. The counsel for applicant moved application for setting aside the order dated 28.03.2014, and ultimately the learned Judicial Magistrate, recalled said order.
4. The applicant filed Criminal transfer application before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karachi South, on the allegations of the partial attitude of the learned trial Court. After hearing the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi South, declined the criminal transfer application by holding that the applicant has failed to make out a good reason for transfer of the proceedings from the trial Court as application for reopening the case was yet not decided by the trial Court.
5. Comments were called from the learned trial Court through the learned District Judge, and the learned Judicial Magistrate, vehemently denied the allegations leveled by the applicant and furnished a detailed and comprehensive report and extending his no objection to transfer the case from his Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for applicant; learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned.
A.P.G for the State and perused the available material meticulously. The learned counsel for applicant has failed to show any good reason to convince the court to consider instant criminal transfer application, but repeating again and again that applicant has lost her faith upon the Court. However, on merits the applicant has no case as her attitude to the proceedings remained highly objectionable and considering the unavailability of the PWs, proceedings of the case were stopped. It is prime duty of the Court to maintain transparency and balance during the trial and must not act according to the whim and wish of the either party to the proceedings.
7. Considering the above circumstances the instant criminal revision application being devoid of merits stands disposed of. However, in the interest of prime justice and to ensure the transparency of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi South, is directed to transfer the subject case from the trial Court to any other competent Court purely on administrative grounds.