' ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition the petitioner has challenged the vires of the order dated 11-4-2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, through/which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the order of learned Judicial. Magistrate 1st Class, Rawalpindi dated 7-2-2012. The petitioner applied for Superdari of vehicle No.RLD-8571 before the learned Judicial Magistrate and the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 7-2-2012 allowed the application of the petitioner. Aggrieved from the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rawalpindi, respondent No.2 filed Revision Petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who vide order dated 11-4-2012 has set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in favour. Of the petitioner and has directed concerned S.H.O. To hand over the possession of the car in question to Muhammad Imran Qureshi respondent No.2.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 31-1-2012 the petitioner was going on his Suzuki Mehran car bearing Registration No.RLD-8571, Chassis No.874120, Engine No.D335582, when Tariq Mehmood S.-I.
Stopped hint and took the vehicle into possession under section 550 Cr.P.C. Being suspected to be stolen property vide daily Diary No.55 dated 31-1-2012.
3. Learned counsel for, the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated. 11-4-2012 is against law and facts of the case and is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. Further submits that the police has violated the mandatory provisions of law and has taken into custody the car in question under section 550 Cr.P.C. Without any lawful justification as no F.I.R. Of theft of the car has been registered so the action of the police is absolutely illegal, hence the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is liable to be quashed; the petitioner obtained the car from the, Bank Alfalah on lease through Muhammad Imran Qureshi respondent No.2 who is his brother-in-law (Saala); the petitioner has paid down payment of Rs.94,475 and the vehicle was leased out in the name of Muhammad Imran Qureshi respondent No.2; from the very first day the car in question bearing Registration No.RLD8571 remained in the possession of the petitioner and the petitioner has paid all the instalments to the Bank concerned; after clearing the instalments the petitioner time and again requested respondent No.2 to transfer the vehicle in his name but he did not do so with mala fide intentions; respondent No.2 has joined hands with the local police of Police Station Saddar Beroni and managed to impound the vehicle of the petitioner under section 550 Cr.P.C.; the vehicle was taken into possession by the police from the possession of the petitioner as such the petitioner is entitled to get back the possession of the vehicle in question and the criminal courts are not bound to decide the question of ownership, rather it is to be determined by the civil courts. The order dated 11-4-2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge has caused a great miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon 2005 SCM R 735, 2007 PCr.LJ 1552 and PLD 2009 Lahore 382.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate-General who is present on Court's call assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the registration book of the vehicle is in the name of respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 has received the vehicle from Bank Alfalah on lease and he has paid all the instalments which is evident from the receipts issued by the concerned Bank in this regard. Further submits that it is settled. Principle of law that the lawful owner of the vehicle is entitled to the custody, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the order dated 11-4- 2012 which is perfectly in accordance with law, hence needs no interference. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon 2008 YLR 571, 2008 YLR 918, 2009 SCM R 911, 2010 YLR 2967 and 2011 PCr.LJ 1729.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Advocate-General and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and also gone through the documents appended with this petition and produced during the course of arguments. It has been noticed that the, car bearing Registration No.RLD-8571 was got on lease by respondent No.2 and he has paid all the instalments to the concerned Bank; the Registration Book reflects the name of respondent No.2 that he is lawful owner of the vehicle/car; the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 is benamidar and as the petitioner has paid all the instalments including down payment so he is entitled to the custody of car and as car was taken into possession by the police under section 550, Cr.P.C. From the custody of the present petitioner so he is entitled to the custody of the same, has got no force; this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner can be decided by the civil court and this Court while exercising its jurisdiction in writ cannot resolve factual controversy; the Registration Book is in the name of respondent No.2 and the receipts available on the file also confirms that he is the person who has paid all the instalments to the concerned Bank so I have seen no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 11- 4-2012, hence needs no interference. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
6. For what has been discussed above, this petition has got no force and the same is dismissed.
7. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are just tentative in nature, the same shall be confined to the disposal of this writ petition and the learned trial Court would decide the matter on its own merits.