Riaz Ahmed VS The State etc

Form No: HCJD/C-121

JUDGEMENT SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

W.P. No.3466/2026

Riaz Ahmed Versus The State and others

Petitioner by: Mr. Raaz Ali Shah, Advocate.

Respondents by: Sardar Arshad Mahmood Khan, Advocate for respondent No.2, Ch. Zubair Iqbal Jatria and Ms. Jannan Gul State Counsels.

Dates of Hearing: 15.09.2026.

JUDGEMENT

UMAIR MAJEED MALIK, J: Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, read with Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., the petitioner has called in question the orders dated 30.06.2026 and 16.07.2026, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Islamabad-East and learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Islamabad-East, respectively, whereby his application for interim custody of Honda CR-V, Model 2018, Registration No. BBC-400, Engine No. L15BG1128004 and Chassis No. MRHRW1840JP067055 (“Vehicle”) was dismissed and the criminal revision met the same fate.

2.Briefly stated, on 16.06.2026, the Vehicle was taken into possession by the police from the respondent No.2 in FIR No.800/2024 dated 03.12.2024, registered at Police Station Lohi Bher, Islamabad, under Section 406, P.P.C, on the complaint of Muhammad Saleem Akhtar. The petitioner, through his attorney Muhammad Saleem Akhtar, and the respondent No.2 independently filed their applications under Section 516-A, Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Islamabad (East), seeking interim custody of the Vehicle on superdari.

The learned Magistrate dismissed the petitioner's application and ordered release of the Vehicle on superdari in favour of the respondent No.2, principally on the ground of his last possession. The criminal revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Islamabad (East). Hence, this petition.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the registered owner of the Vehicle and that the claim of respondent No.2 rests upon disputed and successive transactions which cannot, in summary proceedings under Section 516-A, Cr.P.C., override the official registration record of the Vehicle.

4.Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the respondent No.2 was in possession of the Vehicle when it was recovered and relies upon the documents relating to the alleged sale in his favour. He further points out that a civil suit concerning the Vehicle is pending between the parties.

5.Arguments advanced by learned counsel for parties have been heard and record available on the file perused with able assistance of learned counsel for the parties and learned State Counsel.

6.The record shows that the petitioner through Muhammad Saleem Akhtar entrusted the Vehicle to accused Iftikhar Hussain Shah for sale to a third party for a consideration of Rs.10,200,000/-, out which Rs.2,300,000/- was received by Muhammad Saleem Akhtar. A Handing Over Agreement dated 15.09.2024 was executed between the Petitioner through Muhammad Saleem Akhtar and accused Iftikhar Hussain Shah, followed by another agreement dated 07.11.2024. The petitioner thereafter executed a Power of Attorney dated 27.11.2024 in favour of Muhammad Saleem Akhtar. Accused Iftikhar Hussain Shah sold the Vehicle to Shahzeb Khan but failed to pay the consideration to the petitioner, resulting in registration of FIR No.800/2024. Shahzeb Khan subsequently returned the Vehicle to Iftikhar Hussain Shah on 01.03.2025. Respondent No.2, however, claims to have purchased the Vehicle from Shahzeb Khan and relies upon an affidavit dated 30.03.2025. The record thus discloses disputed and inconsistent transactions concerning the Vehicle.

7.The governing consideration under Section 516-A, Cr.P.C. is interim custody and preservation of case property, not final adjudication of title. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ahsan Ali Dawach v. The State (2025 SCMR 1041) has held that the Court, while deciding an application for interim custody, must consider not only the “best right to possess” but also credible corroboration of ownership, including the

motor registration certificate, purchase invoice or other relevant documents evidencing a lawful claim. The discretion under Section 516- A, Cr.P.C is required to be exercised judicially and for cogent reasons.

8.In the present case, the Vehicle's registration record admittedly reflects the petitioner as its registered owner. The learned courts below, however, proceeded on the factual premise that the petitioner was merely an attorney of the registered owner. That finding is contrary to the record. The petitioner is himself the registered owner and, through his duly authorized attorney, sought interim custody of the Vehicle. His statement before the learned Magistrate that he had no objection to its release in favour of his attorney does not diminish his status as registered owner.

9.The claim of respondent No.2 stands on a materially different footing. His asserted title flows through Shahzeb Khan, whose own statement before the police is that he returned the Vehicle to accused Iftikhar Hussain Shah on 01.03.2025 after receiving the amount paid by him, owing to failure to provide the original documents and transfer the Vehicle in his name. The respondent No.2, on the other hand, relies upon a transaction allegedly entered into with Shahzeb Khan on 30.03.2025. These competing claims raise questions which cannot appropriately be determined in summary proceedings under Section 516-A, Cr.P.C.

10.The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Akhtar Ali v. Additional Sessions Judge, Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh and others (2023 SCMR 711) is squarely applicable to the instant case. There, where the registered owner had entrusted the vehicle to a dealer for sale and the alleged purchaser claimed custody through the dealer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the registered owner was prima facie entitled to temporary custody under Section 516-A, Cr.P.C. It further held that a sale by the intermediary, in the absence of a valid transfer deed executed by the registered owner, did not prima facie establish a lawful transfer of ownership.

11.The case of respondent No.2 is, therefore, insufficient to displace the petitioner's prima facie entitlement as the registered owner. The pendency of the civil suit instituted by respondent No.2 does not alter this conclusion. Questions relating to the validity of the alleged transactions, title to the Vehicle and the ultimate rights of the parties shall be determined by the competent civil court. Release of the Vehicle on superdari is only an interim arrangement and shall not prejudice that adjudication.

12.In these circumstances, the learned courts below fell into error in treating last possession as determinative factor while overlooking the petitioner's registered ownership and the disputed nature of respondent No.2's claim. Mere possession at the time of recovery, particularly where the claim of title itself is founded upon disputed transactions,

cannot by itself confer a superior right to interim custody upon the possessor.

13.For the reasons stated above, the impugned orders dated 30.06.2026 and 16.07.2026 are set aside and this petition is ALLOWED. The Vehicle, Honda CR-V, Model 2018, Registration No.

BBC-400, Engine No. L15BG1128004 and Chassis No.

MRHRW1840JP067055, shall be released on superdari in favour of the petitioner, subject to his furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000,000/- (Rupees Ten Million only) to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, with an undertaking to produce the Vehicle before the Court as and when required.

14.It is clarified that the release of the Vehicle on superdari is purely an interim arrangement. Nothing contained in this order shall prejudice the rights or claims of respondent No.2 in the pending civil proceedings, nor shall the observations made herein be construed as a final determination of title or ownership.

(UMAIR MAJEED MALIK)

JUDGE

Announced in open Court on __/09/2026.

JUDGE

APPROVED FOR REPORTING

Shafqat*/