A case F.I.R. No.282 of 2002 has been registered against the petitioner under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. At Police Station Rawat, District Rawalpindi, on the complaint of one Babar Hussain Sub-- -Inspector (Investigation), Rawalpindi, respondent No.4. It was alleged therein that he was checking the vehicles at Rawat while a vehicle Toyota Hiace white colour, Registration No.AJKD- 5078, Model 1992, Engine No.3L-3216321, Chassis No.LH113---0049215, which was being driven by Raja Sahadat Nawaz, the present petitioner, was stopped and checked. It was taken into possession under section 550, Cr.P.C. And sent to Forensic Science Laboratory Islamabad, for technical report.
The Forensic Science Laboratory submitted the following report:-- "The chemical treatment of the Chassis number of the Toyota Hiace Registration No. JKD-5078 in the case as subject has revealed that the chassis number place has been cut and another iron sheet bearing No.LH--113-0049215 has been welded on the chassis number place. "
2. The petitioner seeks quashment of the F.I.R. Through the instant writ petition Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that from the bare reading of the contents of the F.I.R., the offence under sections 420 and 468, P.P.C. Is not constituted against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has purchased the vehicle in dispute from one Raja Zia Afzal Khan, who has handed over its registration book to him wherein engine and chassis numbers as mentioned in the F.I.R. Are clearly mentioned. Further contends that the original owner had issued transfer letter in favour of the petitioner.
3. On the other hand, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been vehemently opposed by the learned Law Officer contending that the engine and chassis numbers of the vehicle in question was tampered with according to the Forensic Science Laboratory report.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The vehicle in dispute, subject---matter of the F.I.R. Was taken into possession by Muhammad Iqbal, A.S.I. On 12-12-2002 and in this respect a Report was entered in the daily diary on 12-1-2002. The recovery memo. Was also prepared on the same day. The date in the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is written as "03-12-2002" meaning thereby that the case was referred to the Forensic Science Laboratory much before the above report and on receipt of the report, the aforesaid F.I.R. Was registered on 17-12-2002 on the basis of the Report Roznamcha No.15 dated 12- 12-2002 of the Police Station, which makes the prosecution story concocted and doubtful.
5. The allegation against the petitioner is that the chassis and engine numbers of the vehicle in question were tampered with by him. The petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the vehicle in dispute which was originally registered in the name of Raja Tariq Saeed Khan, who then transferred it to Raja Zia Afzal Khan and thereafter the petitioner purchased the same. It is the custom duty paid vehicle, as is evident from the assessment sheet issued by the Collectorate of Customs and Central Excise, Customs House, Quetta. In this document, the engine, model and chassis numbers are the same which are entered in the registration certificate as well as in the F. I. R.
6. From the record of the case, it seems that the report of the Laboratory is not worth reliance as the same was antedated manoeuvred and got prepared by the respondents with the connivance of the officials of the Forensic Science Laboratory, therefore, the prosecution story is belied by their own record.
7. It would be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of section 420, Cr.P.C.:-- "S.420.---Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the persons deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
8. There is no claimant or owner of the vehicle in dispute except the writ petitioner in the field. From the contents-of the F.I.R. No criminal case has been registered nor any complaint with regard to the theft or illegal possession of the said vehicle is available on the record. The petitioner has not induced dishonestly any person deceived to deliver the vehicle to him. Neither such occurrence has ever taken place nor any person or witness has alleged such allegation against the petitioner.
The petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the vehicle in dispute and this fact has not been controverted by the respondents in any manner. Therefore, in such circumstances, the provisions of section 420, P.P.C. Is not attracted to the facts of the present case.
9. Section 468, P.P.C. Provides that whoever commits forgery intending that the documents forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. "Forgery" has been defined in section 463, P.P.C. Which is reproduced as under for further ready reference:-- S.463. ---Whoever makes any false document or part of a document, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
10. The learned Law Officer when confronted with the above proportion of law, he could not produce any false document on account of which the petitioner intended to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person or to support any claim or title.
11. The documents produced by the petitioner have established his ownership over the vehicle in question and the respondents failed to controvert their genuineness. The respondents have not been able to prove or place on record any false document, which the petitioner has prepared or fabricated. The respondents have also failed to bring on record anything or collect any evidence to show that the petitioner fraudulently or dishonestly used any false document as genuine or which he reasonably believed to be a forged document. Thus, the provisions of sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. Are also not attracted to the case of the petitioner.
12. The F.LR. In writ jurisdiction can be quashed if (i) there is a case of no evidence or (ii) from the contents of the F.I.R. The offence is not constituted or (i.e) the F.I.R. Has been registered on mere mala fide of the police. In the circumstances mentioned above, it is manifestly established that there is no evidence against the petitioner for involving him in the instant criminal case registered under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. Nor from the contents of the F.I.R. The said offences are constituted against him. From the contents of the F.I.R. It is established that the vehicle in dispute was taken into possession by the police under section 550, Cr.P.C. Without any legal justification because there was no complaint or case against the petitioner, which is sufficient to establish mala fide on the part of the police functionaries.
13. Consequently for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is accepted and the F.I.R. No.282 dated 17-12-2002 registered under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. At Police Station Rawat, District Rawalpindi, is declared to be illegal and has been lodged by the police without any lawful authority, mala fidely, therefore, the same is hereby quashed.
14. Since the petitioner has faced the agony of investigation at the hands of the police functionaries without any legal justification, therefore, if so advised, he may proceed/take legal action against' them in accordance with law.