' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.- The petitioner, namely, Fazl-ur-Rehman has filed instant petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Seeking quashment of proceedings and orders/decision dated 19-11-2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, whereby Flying Coach No,CD-1572 was ordered to be handed over to Arshad Mehmood, respondent No,l, subject to furnish the bail- bonds in the sum of Rs,6,00,000 with two sureties .Each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court.
2. It was disclosed in the petition that petitioner purchased the vehicle in question from one Sher Muhammad in consideration of Rs,5,75,000 and an agreement in this regard had been duly executed in his favour. After receiving the amount, vehicle was handed over along with the registration and authority letter to the petitioner. After some time, petitioner left for Qatar to earn livelihood and handed over the vehicle to his nephew Abdul Habib. The vehicle met an accident.
The same was send to workshop for necessary repairs. It was added that respondent No,l obtained the registration of the vehicle fraudulently from Abdul Habib and disappeared, which necessitated the latter to move an application dated 13-8-2005 to Senior Superintendent of Police, Kohat for taking necessary action against respondent No,l. The application was marked to the S.H.O., Police Station, Kohat with direction to look into the matter and ensure justice. Respondent No,l after obtaining the registration of the vehicle, left for Haider Abad and manipulated to transfer the vehicle in his name with back date and made an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. To the effect that S.H.O. Concerned be directed to register the F.I.R. Regarding the vehicle in question. The record shows that the denter appeared in the Court on 19-10-2005 and stated that the Flying Coach was brought, by Abdul Habib for. Repair. On the direction of the Court i.e, Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, the Flying Coach was produced in the Court for safe custody, which was handed over to the Superintendent of Sessions Court, Peshawar. Resultantly, per the impugned order, the Flying Coach was directed to be released to respondent No, 1.
3. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Asif, Advocate, for the petitioner, Mr. Munir Hussain, Advocate for respondent No,l and Arbab Muhammad Usman, A.A.-G. For the State. I have also gone through the documents appended therewith.
4. The High Court can quash the proceedings pending before any criminal Court if the Court has violated provisions of law by committing incurable irregularities or illegalities. If any criminal Court passes any order, without having jurisdiction to pass the same, then the High Courts can exercise their powers under this section against such order, ft is not the intention of law that, in exercise of powers under this section, the normal course of trial in subordinate Courts established by law should be diverted. The High Courts can exercise their jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings before a criminal Court if the Court has started criminal proceedings in a dispute, which is of civil nature. The object of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Whereby inherent powers are conferred on High Court, is to do real and substantial justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court. The jurisdiction is extraordinary in nature and is designed to do substantial justice. It is to be exercised in special circumstances and only to prevent abuse of process of Court. The inherent powers cannot be used by way of additional remedy.
5. In the instant case I find that Arshad Mehmood, respondent No,l, claims ownership on the basis of registration of the vehicle, being in his name and possession while the rival claimant Fazl-ur- Rehman, petitioner alleges ownership on the basis of a private agreement deed. A private agreement deed cannot be given preference over registration, which is in the name of respondent No,l. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that impugned order has been recorded in a mechanical manner without application of independent mind and contrary to the material on file. Resultantly, finding ho substance in this quashment petition, I dismiss the same and maintain the impugned order.