Irtaza Mehmood (petitioner) through the petition in hand approached this Court after being aggrieved of police excess, whereby even after getting decisions in his favour from three different courts, Toyota Corolla Car GLI having registration No.LEA-7643 was not handed over to him on Supardari.
2. The facts which formed basis of the instant constitutional petition can be set out in the following chronological order:- (i). A criminal case vide FIR No.416/2018 under section 408 PPC was registered at Police Station Model Town, Lahore upon the complaint of one Khalid Zia Khan (respondent No.5) against petitioner and 4 others with the allegation of financial embezzlement.
(ii). A Toyota Corolla GL1 Car having registration No.LEA-7643 (hereinafter referred to as the "Vehicle"), acclaimed by petitioner to be his belonging, was taken into custody by Amjad Ali ASI (respondent No.4) during investigation of afore-mentioned case.(iii). The Vehicle was given on Supardari to the petitioner by the learned Area Magistrate vide his order dated 12.01.20 19. It is important to mention here that complainant of case Khalid Zia Khan (respondent No.5) also put forth his claim of getting the Vehicle on Supardari before the learned Area Magistrate but it met the fate of dismissal vide order of even date i.e. 12.01.2019.
(iv) Aggrieved by the finding of learned Area Magistrate, a criminal revision was filed by Khalid Zia Khan (respondent No.5) which was dismissed by the learned A.S.J, Lahore on 1 1.03.2019.
(v). Khalid Zia Khan (respondent No.5) invoked the jurisdiction of this Court through Crl.Misc. No.18323-M of 2019 but the orders of learned Magistrate and learned A.S.J were declared to be not suffering from any illegality , thus the Superdari orders were upheld vide order dated 28.03.2019.
(vi). Since the Vehicle was not handed over to petitioner despite successive judicial orders, hence applications dated 15.07.2019, 19.07.2019, 24.08.201 9, 25.08.2019, 26.08.2019, 07.11.2019 and 05.01.2020 were also placed before different police officers. So much so, that S.P. Investigation Model Town, Lahore and Capital City Police Officer, Lahore were also approached by the petitioner through applications dated 24.08.2019 and 11.09.2019 but unfortunately the order of Supardari was not given ef fect and the V ehicle was not handed over to petitioner .
3. In the wake of facts mentioned above, the instant writ petition was filed upon which notice was issued to respondents No.3 to 5 on 01.10.2019 but even then no step towards the implementation of Magistrate's order was taken for the release of the Vehicle in favour of petitioner . The instant writ petitio n again came up for hearing on 22.01.2020 and keeping in view the quarrelsome attitude of police officials towards three judicial orders, a show cause notice was issued to SHO, Police Station, Model Town, Lahore. To be precise, on 24.01.2020 the Vehicle was handed over to petitioner .
4. After taking note of the fact that the officials from Police Station Model Town, Lahore left no stone unturned to frustrate the orders dated 12.01.2019, 11.03.2019 and 28.03.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, learned A.S.J and this Court, a show cause notice was issued to Amjad ASI (respondent No.4) as to why the monthly rent, for the period in which the Vehicle remained in police custody , be not recovered from him. Similar notice was issued to Zulfiqar Butt DSP, Muhammad Azam Wahga DSP, Asif Bahadur ASP, Ali Rizwan Inspector and Mudassar Bhatti Inspector , as all these officers remained posted in the same circle in their capacity as SDPOs or SHOs. For determining the rental of the Vehicle, Javed Inspector/SHO was directed to place on record invoices from different Rent-a-Car Firms which were accordingly submitted. It will not be out of place to mention here that invoices from M/S Brother Rent-A-Car (Mark-A), Shan Rent-A-Car (Mark-B) and Tariq Rent-A-Car (Mark-C) were placed on file in which monthly rent of Toyota Corolla Car Model-2015 was mentioned as Rs.75,000/-, Rs.80,000/- and Rs.85,000/- respectively . Pursuant to the show cause notice mentioned above, all the police officials submitted their reply , the in-depth analysis of which unfolds that the main person responsible for flouting the court orders was Amjad All ASI (respondent No.4). So far as, the remaining police officials are concerned, they are found guilty of indifference towards performing supervisory obligation of monitoring the af fairs of their subordinates.
5. I am tempted to express here that police officers are custodian of law, thus shou ld have utmost respect towards the fundamental rights and dignity of an individual. If a public functionary is found to have encroached upon the rights of a subject or is guilty of flouting the order of a court and that too with a sinister intent of providing undue benefit to an adversary , the courts must come forward with a pragmatic approach of curbing such tendencies.
Survival of a society vests in fair adminis tration of justice and such objective can only be achieved if the rights of individuals are jealously guarded by the courts. Police officials have to understand that their appointments as such are made not solely to provide them a livelihood but for contributing towards social justice and rule of law. Similarly , the purpose of establishing a judicial system is mainly to administer justice and for achieving this end, police officials are legally and constitutionally obliged to work as tools. If it is felt that any police official has gone blunt as a tool, the court must chisel him through an appropriate judicial order , so as to create deterrence for others as well.
6. The facts, set out above, make obvious that unfortunately even after getting three successive judicial decisions in his favour , the petitioner was dealt by the police officials in an impassive manner . Though during arguments, Amjad Ali ASI (respondent No.4) expressed remorse for his misdeeds whereby he made an endeavo ur to frustrate the court orders but it goes without saying that such regret cannot undo the wrong committed by hint As a necessary consequence, besides issuing direction for implementing the order dated 12.01.2019 passed by the learned Area Magistrate, Amjad Ali ASI (respondent No.4) is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.200,000/- (two lac) to the petitioner as compensation for his unlawful act of not releasing the vehicle even after Magistrat e's order of Supardari. C.C.P .O., Lahore (respondent 'No.1) is directed to ensure the recovery of afore-said amount from Amjad Ali AS1 and for its deposit with Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court positively on or before 30th of May, 2020. Since it is proved from the canvassed grievance and supporting circumstances that Amjad All ASI is not only in habit of flouting the court orders and usurping the lawful rights of individuals, hence C.C.P .O. Lahore is further directed not to post him for next two years in any police station or at a place where he is likely to deal with general public. It is also made clear that if the petitioner refuses to receive the amount so deposited by respondent No.4, the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court will release it in favour of some charitable institution like Edhi Foundation or Orphan House at Lahore etc. So *far as, the remaining police officials are concerned, though they cannot be absolved from their frail supervision of subordinates, yet while showing some restraint only a warning to remain careful in future is being issued to them.
7. In the above terms, the instant petition stands disposed of.