' A case under section 379/406, P.P.C. Is registered against the petitioners vide F.I.R. No,179 of 1998 dated 17-4-1998 at Police Station, Ferozewala District Sheikhupura. According to the F.I.R. The father of the complainant had purchased a Yellow Cab (Mini Bus) from the petitioners for an amount of Rs.2,00,000. He had also spent an amount of Rs.2,29,000 on the repair of its body, engine and other parts. An agreement to that effect was executed between the parties, which was being honoured by the complainant, but the petitioners not only violated the agreement, but cheated him in forcibly taking back the vehicle and also threatened him.
2. The petitioners applied for pre-arrest bail, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala vide his order dated 6-6-1998 in which it was observed that the petitioners had taken back the vehicle and had failed to show their innocence. It was also observed that there was no mala fide on the part of the complainant so as to extend the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. After the dismissal of pre-arrest bail as aforesaid the petitioners have filed this petition with the plea that the case against them was false and was only registered by the police after a complaint to that effect was presented by the complainant in an open katchery held by the Prime Minister of Pakistan. It was further contended that it was civil dispute between the parties flowing from an agreement, which was admittedly executed between them. The local police however, acted with patent illegality and ulterior motives to register a criminal case against the petitioners, only because the complainant had presented a complaint before the Prime Minister of Pakistan in an open katchery. It was, therefore, submitted that the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail as the matter in issue was purely of civil nature having no criminal liability whatsoever.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the record.
Photostat copy of, the agreement is also annexed as Annexure-E. It lays down the mode of payment on the part of the complainant to the petitioners. However, if there was any default in making payment by the complainant, the possession of the vehicle was liable to be resumed. The petitioners have contended that they have taken back the vehicle as the complainant had violated the agreement and as such no offence was committed. However, this stand of the petitioners does not appear to be forceful because if there was any violation of the agreement, the proper course for the aggrieved party was to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court instead of taking the law into one's own hands. In the instant case, instead of invoking the jurisdiction of the civil Court, the petitioners took the law into their own hands by depriving the complainant of the vehicle in question, although according to him, their was no violation of agreement. This conduct of the petitioners cannot be encouraged i.e, that after taking the law into their own hands, they should not be admitted, to the pre-arrest bail particularly when their petition has already been dismissed on merits by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozwala. This petition being meritless is dismissed in limine.