1. ' SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, J.---Petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this court by way of filing instant writ petition with the following prayer:-- "Whereof it is respectfully prayed that the orders of both the learned lower courts may kindly be set aside and the Vehicle may graciously be handed over to the petitioner. Further it is prayed that strict action may kindly be initiated against the corrupt S.H.O. And I.O. Of Police Station Kohsar for the gross professional misconduct. Any other relief that appears just and appropriate may also be awarded to the petitioner with costs."
2. Since the instant petition emerged out of the proceedings commenced from action incorporated vide rupt number 28, dated 23-2-2012 therefore, contents of same are provided herein below, which may help to understand the real controversy:-- {{URDU TEXT }} .6 it. 6t+.11:JVCf)
2. 23-2-2012 (Pr ,) KY-505 At/-.1 0,4._ &J., ._ 11-40 o.:.:1)
3. 21.4...n1:0,4",-;11/4,-,,,. SI ei 51 of.;,..Aivt,PF.;701J.ti_ 48.9-F rf 17-10-2011 3/ ei.)(5.1.4Tril.,-iA41,:,t; K2-0342838/?;c1 KY-505(57? SI PCr.LJ {{URDU TEXT }} (5.4 01.11.47)133.44 .I(1411.0.1:4 .3): ..;;v; i1irtYIJiif LA' L? 550 ..i.,(*) --jrtiLcYLJ!..;;,-6 L; Lid 4..7- (3yr o.t.iyLiecfehz.:1.1!A,4,720)... -j1.-Iej LA..
4. As reference of F.I.R. No.510, dated 17-10-2011, offence under section 489-F, P.P.C., Police Station Kohsar is provided in the above rupt, therefore, I find it appropriate to bring the content of F.I.R.
5. Hereinafter:- {{URDU TEXT }} Lo u:).1(1167.41 MY' 0024492 21-10-2010 MY. 0026474 ./:1 4, % 66..,(:-? Chock Pindi Gab - Banora 1.0.3 .4116 1.01....4 19-8-2010 016 tik rt9/ j;AVS1.13.4.6iaillAk -4'..4)41.51.41-4.4. Orra./4 L'i5pKiirr11/1 G-9 jP 51 Alf 440 A; jielis....(12_L5*4-44,-/LAtjeDN-197 AleJ iLiy:j..40 IKZ-0342838 j-,j7:: F342262 r.;ef:/113L-8029 1:V 7)-Z.1 Suzuki Cultus Cultus (c1),-140J9. 1j bal"21101.1(-.Ar L 11-.)1 _6_1-bur J. (Rs. 9,50,000) )e...)L- 4., 21-10-2010 ..4.i!* 7,50,000 bz-q. 0026474 j:24,./.40.).(ji.--2-J1")1 .13d Ei ta I 6.4 -SO. i(?L 19-8-2010 MY 200,000'6;021, 0024492 /:; F-7 6: 1.4 k..4 Lc A.!) clkig hrh t Bonora chock .-?14"k.Rt.)'1',11c.--,.:13Ls 'Lyt...:.r,.,...(Rz'._Iiieti":..* Toyota ji LT?' 114_1, (9,50,000) ill ;ie.-) Lc)TL)14., Surf L5/(1,j3/-1*-.,()51.1J1_ dye L/51,V. Dwe- e+_)510 L Lke 611012334165-3 /;%>../ (r.Py)JSJ 0153,Ii5.10113).1, efii))10.".611L Lcd-vd..f.
6. 13.11K 03335119670 11 (),Alftz..,Aiii (fzijyr &J.) L yt Liy"?
7. 116V. ?(i.Rt ji,C1Q.,./11/iflo ji'e 489-Fr7. {{URDU TEXT}} ' Before dilating upon the issue, it would be in the fitness of things, to reproduce the provision of section 550 from the statute of Cr.P.C.
550. Powers to Police to seize property suspected to be stolen:--- Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.
8. ' Authority exercised by Sub-Inspector, Liaqat Ali, on face of it, appeared not only to be, arbitrary, motivated, unprecedented but result of irrelevant considerations. This court astonished to note that in ICT, Police Officials contribute or facilitate the commission of offence, instant matter is no exception. A man of ordinary prudence can understand the reason of taking the vehicle into possession, under section 550, Cr.P.C. And its delivery to complainant of case F.I.R. No.510. It is painful to observe that learned courts below while passing the impugned orders of "Superdari" failed to note the mannerism in which vehicle was brought to the police station. It tantamounts to encourage the commission of offence and defeating the due process of law. Complainant of the case of F.I.R. No.510 dated 17-10-2011 in fact "hired" the services of Sub-Inspector, Liaqat Ali, with the object to snatch the vehicle at the gun point, in uniform. I believe that said police official achieved the target on the behest of top archalan, of ICT Police. This observation is being substantiated from the inquiry report submitted on behalf of IG Police ICT. It is beyond comprehension that officials of ICT police, can call any action as lawful which on face of it speaking loudly about its illegality and regarding which even this court had observed.
9. It is the case of the complainant of F.I.R. No.510 himself that he exchanged the vehicle and also received cheques of Rs.9,50,000. For all practical intent and purposes, it was a concluded agreement and if there was any violation, the complainant was supposed to approach the court of competent jurisdiction unfortunately complainant, instead of proceeding on legal premises, opted to violent and shameful act of entering into deal with police official who as observed proceeded in the matter as "ruffian" instead of custodian of law. Such type of police officials are not entitled to wear the uniform of police who play havoc with the process of law. It is worthy to mention that, in fact vehicle in question was taken into possession by the police official from showroom of petitioner which act is illegal, without jurisdiction, unprecedented and offensive to his rights.
10. Therefore, the orders passed by the courts below are set aside/quashed. Respondent/superdar of the vehicle has been directed to hand over the custody of vehicle to S.I, Liaqat Ali who has further been directed to deliver it to the petitioner with a consequence as if vehicle was never taken into possession under section 550, Cr.P.C. However, this is without prejudice to the rights of the either of the parties which they may enforce through court of competent jurisdiction.
11. ' Copy of this judgment may also be sent to Secretary, Ministry of Interior and I.-G. Police, ICT.