1. ' Mr. Islam Hussain, Advocate has filed power on behalf of the respondent No,2. The same is taken on record.
2. ' By this application the applicant Khalid Javed has assailed the order dated 6-3-2002 passed by VII Judicial Magistrate, Karachi East and order dated 11-7-2002 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East. The case arose out of F.I.R. No,36 of 2002 of Police Station Korangi, Karachi East.
3. ' The brief facts of the case as disclosed in F.I.R. Dated 18-1-2002 lodged by Azam Hussain under sections 420, 406, 506-B, P.P.C. Are reproduced hereinbelow in extenso:-- "I beg to submit that on 4-12-2001 Mian Faizan alias Kamran came at my residence No,A/409 and paid the earnest money for the car bearing No,LOJ-5690 and got the same on rented basis. Later on he refused to return the same on my demand and handed over cheque, which has not been encashed. Thereafter I made enquiry and came to know that the has sold the car and misappropriated the amount. I insisted for the return of car. He came in my locality and threatened me that in future if I demanded money and car from Mian Faizan alias Kamran, he will break my legs. The same would be given to me. There are many witnesses of this incident and they can be produced by me. I request you that direction may be issued to S.H.O., Korangi for registration of case."
4. ' The applicant moved the trial- Court for custody of car but his request was declined by impugned order dated 6-3-2002. The operative part of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "In view of the above facts and circumstances of this case, as the both applicants reclaiming to be real owner of the vehicle in question. It is difficult to this Court to determine at this stage that who is real owner of the vehicle in question and there is dispute between both the applicant on the titlement/ownership of the vehicle in question, therefore, the both parties re-required to approach the Civil Court to decide the ownership of the vehicle in question on the basis of evidence produced by the both parties which is best forum to decide the matter and declare titlement/ownership of the said vehicle. Accordingly both the applications stand disposed of."
5. ' The applicant moved the Sessions Court against the order reproduced hereinabove but his request was turned down by impugned order dated 11-7-2002. The operative part of the order is reproduced hereinbelow:-- ' "Both parties are claiming to be the real owner of the vehicle in question. The title of the vehicle is disputed, hence the learned Magistrate has rightly held that both parties to get clear the title from the Civil Court. The record shows that no illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the learned lower Court in passing the above order. In these circumstances there is no force in this criminal revision application. The rulings cited by the applicant's counsel are not applicable to this case and have not supported his case on these points in the above circumstances."
6. ' I have heard Mr. Adnan Ahmed learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/accused, Mr. Javed Akhtar learned counsel appearing on behalf of A.-G. For the State and Mr. Islam Hussain on behalf of the respondent No,2. Both the latter learned counsel have opposed the prayer of the applicant/accused.
7. ' Admittedly, both the parties are claiming ownership of the vehicle in question. The entitlement of both the parties is disputed. The ownership could only be established by adducing the evidence before the proper forum provided under law. The concurrent orders passed by two Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. Resultantly, the present application stands dismissed alongwith listed application.