Muhammad Shakeel VS Abid Zulfiqar & other

/o b

ORDER SHEET

IIT TIIE ISLIIMITBAD IIIGH COT'RTt ISLIItrIILBAI)

CASE NO.: WRIT PETITION NO.2271I2O12

MI'HAMMAD SIIAI(TEL

APPELLANT

PETITIONER

VERSUS

ABID ZULFIQAR, Ef(c.

RESPONDENT

DEFENDANT

Appeal/revision against the decree or order (as the case may be) of SDRIIL rO. or DATEORORDER,OT Order with signatures ofjudge, and that of parties

ORDER OT

PROCEEDII|G9

!ROCEEDIilCs or where

16.ro.2012 Mr. Rashad-u1-Musawar, Advocate for petitioner alongwith petitioner.

tvIr. M. Shahid Kamal Khan, Advocate for respondent along with respondent No.1. Mr. Javed Iqbal, learned standing counsel. Liaqat Ali, S.I, Javed lqbal, ASI.

Petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this court by way of filing instant writ petition with the following prayer:- "Whereof it is respectfullg praged thot the orders of both the learned louter couris mag kindlg be set aside and tlrc Vehicle mag graciouslg be lmnded ouer to the petitioner. Rtrther it is praged ttnt strict action mag kindlg be initiated against the arntpt SHO and IO of Police Station Kolsar for tle gross professional misconduct' AnA other retief that appears iust and appropriate mag orlso be autareded to tle petitioner with asts."

2.Since the instant petition emerged out of the proceedings commenced from action incorporated vide rupt number 28, dated 2g.O2.2O12, therefore, contents of same are

w.P No.227l/2012 2

provided herein below, which may help to understand the real controversy:- ,//J' q ?qt '(rUt ILt uz

L7, a/klr4l,t, I i ,(5u '/r, Ky- {"f ) //>ra!g{o pZ;

As reference of FIR No.510, dated 17.l}.2}ll, offence u/s 489-F PPC, P.S Kohsar is provided in the above rupt, therefore, I find it appropriate to bring the content of FIR hereinafter:- -?d/

b

W.PNo.227ll2OL2 3

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.PC.

55O. Pouters to Pollce to selze ProPertg suspected to be stolen:- Ang police officer mag seize ang propertg uhich mag be alleged or saspected to lwue been stolen, or uhich mag be found under circum,stances uthich create sttspicion of tlrc commission of ang offence. Such police officer, if subordinate to the oJficer in clnrge of a police station, shnll fortfuaith report the seistre to thnt officer.

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.PC and it's delivery to complainant of case FIR No.S10' 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 tentamounts to encourage the commission of offence and defeating the due process of law' Complainant of the case of FIR No'510 dated

qP

W.PNo.227l/2O12 4

17.lO.2Ol1, infact *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.

It is the case of the complainant of FIR No.51O, 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 but 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 Iaw. Such type of police officials are not entitledtoweartheuniformofpolicewhoplay havoc with the process of law' It is worthy to

t0

W.PNo.227Ll2ot2 5

mention that, infact 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. 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 u/s 550 Cr.PC.

However, this is without prejudice to the rights of the either of the parties which they may enforce through court of competent jurisdiction.

Copy of this judgment may also be sent to Secretary, Ministry of Interior and I.G Police,

ICT.

AZ\Z SIDDIQUII

JT'DGE

Approved for RePorting.

'WaqarAhmed" ,

Blvtt- 61;P adilf

Uploaded By :- Engr. Umer Rasheed Dar