Through instant petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. Sher Zamin petitioner has prayed for `superdari' of Motor Car Bearing Registration No, PRB-3846, by setting aside the impugned orders of the forums below i,e, Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, passed on 19.2.2007 and 26.3.2007, respectively.
2. Brief facts of the case as emanate from the record are, that Nazir Muhammad, Respondent No, 1, addressed an application to local police Peshawar to the effect that he had sold his Motor Car No PRB3846 to the petitioner but the petitioner had not paid him any amount. In consequence of the said application, the Motor Car was impounded by the police. Report of Respondent No, 1 was entered in Daily Diary Mad No, 24 dated 31.10.2007 and inquiry under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was conducted. Thereafter, the petitioner and Respondent No, 1, through separate applications, applied for return of Motor Car. The application of Respondent No, 1 was accepted and the Motor Car was directed to be given to him on `superdari' on furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs, 10,00,000/- with two sureties. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner filed revision petition before Sessions Judge, Peshawar, which was entrusted to Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar for disposal. The same was dismissed vide order dated 26.3.2007, giving rise .to the filing of instant petition.
3. I have heard at length Mr. Amin-ur-Rehman, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Hussain Ali, Advocate for Respondents 1 and 2 and Miss Shabana Tajak, Advocate representing the State, in the light of material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the vehicle in question was registered in the name of Arif Muhammad son Atta Muhammad on 2.9.1998, which was later on transferred to ORIX Leasing Pakistan Limited on 8.7.2003; that on 8.7.2003, the vehicle was given to Continental Trading Corporation under the lease agreement dated 9.7.2003; that on 21.11.2003, Managing Director Continental Trading Corporation issued a certificate in respect of the vehicle that Mr. Amar Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Firas could only drive the Motor Car in question, but Amar Muhammad sold the vehicle to Muhammad Ayub through Wal Motor Peshawar, that Respondent No, 2 executed a sale-deed alongwith Respondent No, 1 with the petitioner and certain amount was paid by the petitioner in instalments to ORIX Leasing Pakistan Limited. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel maintained that both the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the learned Magistrate by passing the impugned orders have transgressed the limits and adopted the procedure of deciding the civil matter of ownership between the petitioner and Respondents 1 and 2, specially when the former had not lodged any. report of aforesaid car with any police or: complainant in any Court. The seizure of car and taking it into custody by police was not based on any legal foundational grounds. Power exercised under Section 550 Cr.P.C. by the S.I. does not display the above board conduct of aforesaid official. To substantiate the contentions, reliance has been placed on the following citations:-- Ch. Muhammad Farook, vs. The State and another (1970 PCr. LJ 1253), Ghagmal vs. Himmat Khan and others (1985 P.Cr. LJ 1175), and Tariq Naveed Ahmad vs. Allah Ditta and 2 others (2004 P.Cr. LJ 1169).
5. Learned counsel representing Respondents No, 1 and 2, assisted by learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, defended the impugned orders whole heartedly, contending that learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any illegality in the impugned orders, which are not open to legitimate exception. To supplement the contentions, copies of various documents were placed on the record.
6. High Court does not exercise its inherent jurisdiction unless there is grave miscarriage of justice and interference by High Court seems to be necessary to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561-A is neither alternative nor additional in its character and is to be rarely invoked only in the interest of justice so as to seek redress of grievances for which no other procedure is availably and that the provisions should not be used to obstruct or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure. The jurisdiction is neither akin to appellate jurisdiction nor to revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, but is a special extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction, main aim and object of which is to save the people from the agony of the abuse of the process of the Court and from fake and mock trials. The jurisdiction is extraordinary in nature and is designed to do substantial justice. It is neither akin to appellate jurisdiction nor to revisional jurisdiction. It is to be exercised in special circumstances and only to prevent abuse remedy. They are preserved to meet a lacuna in the Criminal Procedure Code in extraordinary cases and are not intended for vesting the High Courts with powers to make any order which they are pleased to consider to be in the interest of justice.
These powers are as such, controlled by principles and precedents in the same manner as express statutory powers.
7. In the instant case it is not denied that the Motor Car in question was the ownership of M/S. Continental Trading Corporation through Muhammad Asif, who has sold the vehicle to Respondent No, 1 through a sale-deed. After paying all the dues, Muhammad Asif handed over the original transfer letter to Respondent No, 1, which is still in his possession. Thereafter, Respondents 1 and 2 sold the Motor Car to the petitioner by executing an agreement deed stipulating that the petitioner will play all the amount to Respondents 1 and 2 and will also pay the remaining instalments to the Bank. Strangely enough, Muhammad Asif has not been made party to the proceedings. The record is also silent regarding the fulfillment of the conditions by the petitioner. The documents produced by Respondent No, 1 prima facie show that Respondent No, 1 is the bona fide owner of the car in question and the learned Court below have rightly granted `superdari' of the vehicle to Respondent No,
1. Syed Wali Najam vs. Muhammad Abdul Hussain and another (1999 PCr. LJ 1167), and Haji Muhammad Ismail vs. The State (1992 P.Cr. LJ 988).
In view of what has gone above, it follows that not illegality or irregularity has been committed by the forums below in exercise of their jurisdiction. Consequently, this petition being without merits is here dismissed.