MUHAMMAD SALEEM and another's vs STATE and 3 others
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging the orders passed by the lower courts dismissing the petitioners' application for superdari of a disputed vehicle. The core legal question revolved around entitlement to the interim custody (superdari) of a vehicle involved in a criminal case where rival claims of ownership and conflicting transfer documents existed between close relatives. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the registration of the vehicle stood in the name of the respondent and he was found in its possession, while the petitioners failed to produce valid transfer documents establishing their ownership, the lower appellate court was fully justified in granting superdari to the respondent. The court laid down the principle that questions of disputed ownership involving the absence of proper transfer documents and conflicting claims are best decided by a civil court, and interim custody should ordinarily follow registration and possession where the petitioner fails to substantiate a prima facie title.
- Whether interim custody of a vehicle can be granted to a party when the registration book and possession remain with them and the rival claimant fails to produce a valid transfer deed?
- Can a criminal court resolve complex questions of title during proceedings for the superdari of case property?
- Whether the High Court should interfere under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 with concurrent orders of lower courts regarding interim custody of a vehicle?
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. the petitioners have called in question the legality, of orders dated 4.10.2003 passed by the learned Magistrate Burewala and that of dated 19.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala whereby the application of the petitioners for superdari of the vehicle in dispute was dismissed.
2. Facts of the case in nutshell giving rise to this petition are that the Petitioner No, 1 lodged an FIR No, 225/03 dated 10.6.2'003 under Section 381-A PPC at Police Station City Burewala to this effect that he purchased a Dala Hi-Lux No, 6910 FSL from Respondent No, 4 for a consideration of Rs, 3,30,000/- and the transfer deed was executed in favour of Petitioner No, 2 i,e, wife. of Petitioner No,
1. Thereafter the aforesaid vehicle was forcibly snatched by Respondent No, 4 whereupon the above mentioned FIR was lodged by the petitioners and the vehicle in dispute was taken into custody by the police. Thereafter both the parties applied for superdari of the vehicle before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Burewala who vide order dated 7.8.2003 allowed the application of Respondent No,
4. Feeling aggrieved Petitioner No, 1 filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala who vide order dated 1.9.2003 accepted the revision petition and remanded the case to the learned Judicial Magistrate to decide both the applications for superdari afresh in accordance with law. On 4.10.2003 the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed both the applications with the observation that question of title is involved which can only be decided by the Civil Court. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid order both the parties went in revision petitions before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala who vide order dated 19.12.2003 allowed the revision petition of Respondent No, 4 and dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner and passed the impugned order, hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the impugned orders passed by the learned lower Courts are against law and facts. Further contended that the learned lower Court was not justified while dismissing the application for superdari of the petitioner as such he is owner of the vehicle in dispute and also the complainant of this case, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
4. On the contrary the learned counsel for Respondent No, 4 strongly repelled the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and supported the impugned orders passed by the learned lower Courts.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Although the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the vehicle in dispute was purchased by them from Respondent No, 4, yet he i,e, Respondent No, 4 denied the claim of the petitioners. Learned counsel for Respondent No, 4 during the course of his arguments pointed out that the petitioners as well as Respondent No, 4 are closely related to each other and the petitioners claim ownership of the vehicle in dispute on the bais of an oral agreement. He further went on arguing that registration of the vehicle in dispute is in the name of Respondent No, 4 and this fact has not been denied by the petitioners in asmuch as the same was taken into custody by the police from the possession of Respondent No,
4. It has been rightly observed by the learned lower Court that the Petitioner No, 1 claims himself to be the owner of the vehicle in dispute under the umbrella of agreement/transfer deed executed by Respondent No, 4 in favour of his wife Mst.
Sughran Bibi but no transfer deed of any sort in the name of the Petitioner No, 1 or his wife has been produced in the Court. He has rightly ventured to dismiss the revision petition of the petitioner.
Admittedly Respondent No, 4 is in the possession of vehicle in dispute and as stated above the registration of the same is also found mentioned in his name.
7. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances the learned lower Court was justified while accepting the revision petition for superdari of Respondent No,
4. More over I do agree with the observation made by the learned lower Court to this effect that to prove his ownership of the vehicle in dispute the Petitioner No, 1 may approach the proper forum. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order passed by the learned lower court seems to be exceptional and calls for no independence by this Court.
8. Resultantly I find no merits in this petition which is hereby dismissed.