M.A. ZAFAR, J. - Brief facts of the case are that Jalil Saeed, respondent No. 3/complainant approached the Saudi Pak Leasing Company Limited and obtained a Kara Koram Kalam Van Model 2006, bearing registration No. STU-9978 on lease vide agreement dated 06.07.2006. After completing legal formalities, the above facility was approved and the respondent No. 3 under the terms of the agreement was required to pay monthly lease rental of Rs. 11,585/- for the period of 36 .Months commencing from July 10, 2006. That the respondent No. 3 issued post dated cheques towards the liquidation of his liability in the form of monthly lease rental but respondent No. 3 without the permission or the consent of Saudi Pak Leasing Company Limited sold it to one Muhammad Usman through an agreement dated 03.04.2007. Not only respondent No. 3 sold the vehicle which was in the name of Saudi Pak Leasing Company Limited but he -also executed a transfer-deed in favour of said Muhammad Saeed. Lateran on account of non-payment of the instalments the leasing company captured the vehicle as per terms of agreement executed by respondent No. 3.
2. The respondent No. 3 got a case registered under Section 406, PPC vide F.I.R. No. 388/08, dated 18.06.2008 with P.S. Hajji Pura, District Sialkot alleging therein that he had obtained the vehicle on lease, due to the slump he only paid 12 instalments and thereafter he sold the vehicle to Usman son of Abdul Maieed who is neither paying any instalments to the Bank nor let him know the whereabouts of the vehicle and he had remove stealthily/mis-appropriated the vehicle.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his petition for quashing the aforesaid F.I.R.
Submits that petitioner is a Manager of the Bank and vehicle is in the name of the Bank which was given to the respondent No. 3 on lease and after making payment of certain instalments, he failed to make payment and mala fide transferred in the name of Muhammad Usman contrary to the agreement executed by him and even the registration book is in the name of the Saudi Pak Leasing Company.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that with thd consent of the Bank Officials respondent No. 3 gave/sold vehicle to Usman who is nephew of Zia Ullah Qureshi the Recovery Officer.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record I have observed that vehicle STU 9978. Is in the name of M/s. Saudi Pak Leasing Company Limited with the Motor Registering Authority, Sialkot and respondent No. 3 after obtaining the said vehicle on lease from the Leasing Bank paid some instalments and subsequently sold the saryie to Usman respondent No. 4 without the permission or consent in writing of the concerned Bank in contravention of clause 9 of the lease agreement executed between M/s. Saudi Pak Leasing Company Limited and Jalil Saeed respondent No. 3. The transfer-deed allegedly executed by respondent No. 3 in favour of respondent No. 4 clearly reflects that respondent No. 3 being owner executed the said transfer- deed. If the Bank has impounded the vehicle owned by it on account of nonpayment of monthly instalments by the lessee Which admittedly are not being paid, no case under Section 406, PPC could have been registered against the Manager of the Bank. The very registration of the case against the petitioner by respondent No. 3 is a mala fide act on his part in order to swindle away the amount. Of loan taken by him.
6. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the case against the petitioner is based on malice and continuance of proceedings against him would amount to abuse of process of Court. Accordingly I accept the application and quash the proceedings qua the petitioner only by placing reliance on a case titled "Muhammad Aslarri v. Muhammad Air (1977 P.Cr.L.J. 447).