' Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is a Manager of a Bank engaged in leasing vehicles to the customers. On default of one of its customers the lessor Bank employing the petitioner repossessed the vehicle in question. Thereupon respondents Nos.2 and 3 have raised claim that the said vehicle had been sold to them by the defaulting lessee. Learned counsel submits that no leased vehicle can be sold by a lessee because the title of such a vehicle is in the name of the lessor financial institution. He further submits that the rights of the lessor Bank are protected by the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and repossession of the said vehicle had been conducted in accordance with law. Respondent No,3 has, however, lodged an F.I.R. No,757 dated 28-12-2004 at Police Station Model Town Gujranwala alleging therein that the petitioner has committed fraud and breach of trust in repossessing the leased vehicle.
2. A report in this petition was submitted by respondent No,1/S.H.O. Wherein it is stated that the vehicle leased by the employer Bank of the petitioner (Lessor) has changed several hands through sale and each time the new vendee has also assumed the obligation to pay the lease rentals to the Lessor. In this connection the petitioner has accepted in his statement dated 22-9-2004 given to the Investigating Officer attached at page 26 of the petition that two cheques dated 29-5-2004 for Rs,18, 000 and 27-7-2004 for Rs,36, 000 were received by the Lessor as lease rentals for the vehicle but were credited into a wrong account. Subsequently on 14-9-2004 that amount was retrieved by the Lessor and credited to the correct leasing account maintained in respect of the vehicle involved in this case.
3. From F.I.R. No,757 of 2004 dated 28-12-2004 it is apparent that the lessor Bank recovered\ the leased vehicle on 25-7-2004 from the custody of the complainant. This action could be taken because of default in payment of lease rentals. However, the record shows that admittedly the rentals of Rs,54,000 had been wrongly credited to a different lease account; this error was thereafter corrected much later on 14-9-2004.
4. From the above the following points are clear. That the Lessor was entertaining and receiving rental payments from third parties including the complainant in the F.I.R., who in their record was not the lessee for the leased vehicle. That evidently Lessor was not maintaining proper accounts in the leasing account of this case which was rectified after two months. That most importantly, the complainant was deprived of the leased vehicle prematurely for a credit entry fault of the Lessor and not for a default by the complainant.
5. The foregoing facts certainly do not disclose a case for quashment of the F.I.R. As the allegations made in the F.I.R. Are neither baseless nor motivated solely by malice. There, is, however, truth to the assertion that the complainant was in possession of the leased vehicle without being its registered owner in the registration book of the said vehicle. Likewise the lessee as well as the, subsequent persons in A possession of the leased vehicle affirmed the lease agreement as being binding upon them because each of them accepted the obligation to pay lease rentals according to that agreement. Therefore, their knowledge of the rights and interest of the Lessor in the vehicle according to the terms of the lease agreement cannot be ignored. The fact that the use and dealing of third persons with the vehicle was in violation of the lease agreement, was known to them. The enforcement of a contractual right by the Lessor cannot therefore, be converted into a criminal offence. These are, however, points that can conveniently be brought to the attention of the Investigating Officer to show the Lessor Bank's entitlement, and if at all, the innocence of its officers in respect of the offence charged in the F.I.R.
6. This petition discloses a case involving a delicate commercial transaction that has been conducted without reasonable care by the Lessor leading to the controversy narrated in the F.I.R. It goes without saying that the Police Authorities are bound to exercise statutory powers and functions strictly in accordance with law and shall not permit the spirit and nature of the commercial transaction between the Lessor and its customer to be defeated by persons who may have misconstrued and miscarried the transaction as contemplated by the lease agreement itself.
In other words the police investigation should aim at fixing the responsibility for the miscarriage of the lease transaction rather than allow a resort to the coercive power of the police to become a means of escape or avoidance of financial liability under the lease agreement.
7. Disposed of in the above terms.