MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus State
This petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the orders of the lower courts which dismissed the petitioners' application for the Superdari (custody) of a disputed vehicle. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the temporary custody of the vehicle despite a disputed claim of ownership and existing registration in the name of the respondent. The Court held that the lower courts correctly exercised their discretion in granting custody to the respondent. The High Court reasoned that the vehicle was recovered from the respondent's possession, and the registration remained in the respondent's name. Furthermore, the petitioners failed to produce any concrete documentary evidence, such as a transfer deed, to substantiate their claim of ownership. The Court affirmed that in cases of disputed title regarding movable property, the criminal court is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate ownership, and the aggrieved party must seek redress before a competent civil court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the lower court's order.
- Is a criminal court the appropriate forum to adjudicate a disputed title of a vehicle during Superdari proceedings?
- Can a party claim Superdari of a vehicle based on an alleged oral agreement when the registration remains in the name of the opposing party?
- Does the High Court have the authority to interfere with a lower court's discretionary order regarding the temporary custody of property under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- 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 thatthe petitioner No.1 lodged an F.I.R. No.225/2003, dated 10-6-2003 under section 381-A, P.P.C. At Police Station City Burewala to this effect that he purchased a Dala Hi-Lux No.6'910 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.l. Thereafter, the aforesaid vehicle was forcibly snatched by respondent No.4 whereupon the above mentioned F.I.R. 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 by 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 basis 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 inasmuch 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 stated above the registration of the same is also found mentioned in his name.
7. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, thelearned lower Court was justified while accepting the revision petition for Superdari of respondent No.4. Moreover, 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, theimpugned order passed by the learned lower Court seems to be unexceptional and calls for no interference by this Court.
8. Resultantly, I find no merits in this petition which is hereby dismissed.
H.B.T./M-438/L Petition dimissed.