Anda di halaman 1dari 15

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

W.P. No._____________/2002

Amir Zada S/o Haji Raza Khan, caste Pathan, R/o Kot Haji Gulzar,
Kamal Bazar, Dera Ismail Khan.
Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State.
2. Muhammad Arshad S/o Shah Din, caste Arain, R/o Chak No.
255/EB, Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari.
3. S.H.O. P.S. Gaggo,
4. Riaz Ahmad A.S.I. District Vehari.
5. D.S.P. (Legal) Vehari.
6. Judicial Magistrate, Police Station Gaggo, Burewala, District
Vehari.
Respondents

Writ Petition under Article 199


of the Constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been
given for the purpose of their summons and citations.

2. That the petitioner purchased a Bedford bus No. 9975/FDF from


Muhammad Iqbal Javed S/o Noor Muhammad caste Jat, resident
of P-613 Hussain Bazar, Haji Abad (district Faisal Abad) in lieu
of consideration (Rs. 590,000/- + 10,000/- for miscellaneous
expenses) Rs. 600,000/- on an open transfer letter. The amount
was paid to said Muhammad Iqbal Javed in the presence of
Muhammad Suleman and Ch. Talib Hussain while the registration
book, transfer letter and the possession of said bus was also
delivered to the petitioner then and there. The ownership of the
said bus was transferred in the name of the petitioner and the said
bus was converted into a truck on 5.1.2000. Copy of registration
is Annex “A”.

3. That on 14.2.2000 the respondent No. 2 submitted an application


before the Excise and Taxation Officer/Motor Registration
Authority Faisalabad stating thereby that he is owner of said bus
and one Raza Khan after obtaining the copy of Identity Card from
somewhere got transferred the said vehicle in his name through a
forged transfer letter. However, he admitted that he agreed to sell
the said vehicle to Muhammad Iqbal alias Bala but no
consideration was paid to him. He also alleged that the said
Muhammad Iqbal alias Bala committed the forgery and requested
for the cancellation of ownership from the name of said Raza
Khan. On this application, the Excise & Taxation Officer/Motor
Registration Authority, Faisalabad issued notices to the petitioner
and said Muhammad Iqbal alias Bala. Copies of application and
Notice are Annexes “B & C”.

4. That the application dated 14.2.2000 was even subjudice before


Excise and Taxation Officer/Motor Registration Authority,
Faisalabad when a notice from the S.P. city Faisalabad was
received to the petitioner to attend the office of A.D.C. (G)
Faisalabad on 2.5.2000. The petitioner attended the office of
A.D.C. (G) on 2.5.2000. Then it transpired to the petitioner that
the application submitted by the respondent
No. 2 is actually submitted before the District Monitoring Cell,
Faisalabad. Looking at the conduct and behaviour of respondent
No. 2, the petitioner filed a civil suit in the court of Senior Civil
Judge, Faisalabad, which was entrusted for further hearing to the
court of Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan, Civil Judge. In this suit, the
respondent No. 2 was placed as defendant No. 4. The respondent
No. 2 filed his written statement on 7.6.2000 in which changed
his version and he categorically admitted that he agreed to sell the
vehicle in question in lieu of the consideration of Rs. 590,000/- to
the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 also admitted that he
received Rs. 186,000/- from the petitioner and the remaining
amount Rs. 404,000/- was agreed to be paid on 24.11.99. Copies
of notice, plaint and written statement are Annexes “D, E & F”.

5. That during the pendency of proceedings in Civil Court, before


Excise and Taxation Officer/Motor Registration Authority,
Faisalabad and District Monitoring Cell, Faisalabad, the
respondent No. 2, in connivance with the police got registered a
case at Police Station Gaggo (Vehari) against the petitioner and
others vide F.I.R. No. 223/2000 dated 26.8.2000 under section
381-A P.P.C. with a new version. During the investigation,
offences under seciton 420, 468 and 471 P.P.C. were added. The
petitioner filed a constitutional petition No. 10802/2000 titled
“Amir Zada Vs. the State etc.”, seeking the quashment of this
F.I.R. This petition was disposed of on 12.12.2000 by His
Lordship Mr. Justice Basheer A. Mujahid, directing the petitioner
to join the investigation and production of relevant documents
before the Investigation Officer. On the appearance and
production of documents before the Investigation Officer, the said
F.I.R. was cancelled accordingly on 22.1.2001. Copy of W.P.,
Order, F.I.R. and cancellation report are Annexures “G, H, J &
K”.

6. That during the course of investigation of F.I.R. No. 223/2000


a bus was taken into possession, on the pointation of
respondent No. 2, claiming to be the same as mentioned in the
F.I.R. The respondent No. 2 submitted an application for
Superdari before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned
who after obtaining the report from the police/S.H.O. police
station Gaggo, refused the same vide order dated 29.2.2000.
This order was assailed through a Revision Petition by the
respondent No. 2 before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Burewala, who vide order dated 13.1.2001, allowed the
Revision Petition. Copy of application dated 27.9.2000, order
dated 29.9.2000, Revision Petition dated 5.10.2000 and
impugned judgment dated 13.1.2001 are Annexures “L, M, N
& O”.

7. That one Syed Ibrar Yazdani came forward by filing a W.P.


No. 864/2001, that the police of Police Station Gaggo took his
bus No. 560/LHJ, into possession; and not going to return the
same to him. The S.H.O. concerned was summoned by this
Hon’ble Court on 16.2.2001. The S.H.O. concerned along-
with Shaukat Ali A.S.I. appeared in the court and maid
statements. The order passed is reproduced as under: -

Ch. Muhammad Ilyas, Advocate for petitioner.


Saghir Ahmad Watoo, S.H.O. and Shaukat Ali A.S.I.

“It is stated by the police officials present in the


Court that F.I.R. No. 323/2000 registered at Police
Station Gaggo has already been cancelled. It is further
stated that bus in question is in possession of
Muhammad Arshad. At this stage, learned counsel
requests that he be allowed to implead Muhammad
Arshad as a party. He may do so within a week. Office
is directed to fix W.P. no. 10802/2000 along-with the
instant petition. Re-list on 12.3.2001.”

Sd/-

(NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI)

JUDGE.

In view of this order Muhammad Arshad Sabir (respondent


No. 2 in this petition) was impleaded as respondent No. 4 in
that petition on the next date.

8. That as the petitioner was bonafide purchaser of the bus No.


9975/FDF, which was converted into truck with due
permission; and was further delivered in due course of
business. This vehicle No. 9975/FDF was never
recovered/taken into possession by the police in connection
with F.I.R. No. 323. Order dated 13.1.2001 passed by the
learned ASJ, Burewala was a result of connivance between
respondents No. 2 & 3. As soon as this order came to the
knowledge of the petitioner, the said order was impugned
through W.P. No. 1953/2001 in this Hon’ble Court.

9. That on 12.3.2001, both the petitions were fixed for hearing.


The W.P. No. 1953/2001 was admitted for regular hearing
while the order passed in W.P. No. 846/2001 is reproduced as
under: -

Ch. Muhammad Ilyas, Advocate.


Mr. Ayaz Ahmad Chaudhry, Advocate.
Saghir Wattoo, S.H.O. (respondent No. 2)

“S.H.O. states that as per his inquiry made from


the Excise & Taxation Office, Lahore and Faisalabad,
respondent No. 4 has obtained Superdari of vehicle in
question on wrong premises of facts. Since connected
W.P. No. 1953/2001 has already been admitted to
regular hearing and fixed for 28.3.2001, this petition
shall also be heard along-with the same.”
Sd/-

(NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI)

JUDGE.

However, both the petitions were disposed of vide order dated


26.9.2001. Copy of order is Annexure “P”.

10. That during the last month, the respondent No. 4 raided the
residence and place of business of petitioner for many times.
The petitioner explored the matter and found that on the
opinion given by the respondent No. 5, the learned respondent
No. 6 granted the permission for investigation; and in due
course of the investigation the respondent No. 4 obtained non-
bailable warrants on 8.1.2002 and then obtained permission
for proclamation in connection with proceedings under section
87/88 Cr.P.C. on 15.1.2002. Copies are Annexures “Q & R”.

11. That the F.I.R. No. 323/2000 dated 26.8.2000 under section
381-A, added offences 420/468/471 P.P.C. registered at Police
Station Gaggo (Vehari), opinion of respondent No. 5 and
orders dated 8.1.2002 & 15.1.2002 requested by respondent
No. 4 and passed by respondent No. 6 are liable to be quashed
interalia on the following: -

GROUNDS

a) That no occurrence has been happened and the case is


prima facie false on its face.

b) That as per own version of respondent No. 2, no vehicle


was present at the time of occurrence within the
territorial jurisdiction of P.S. Gaggo, so, the case is a
concocted story.

c) That after the verification of the particulars of both the


vehicles, addition of offences became redundant.

d) That there is concealment of facts on the part of


respondent No. 2, even the behaviour of respondent
No. 2 is contemptuous and liable to be prosecuted.

e) That the written statement filed by the respondent No. 2


in the civil court is quite different from the stand taken
in the F.I.F., as well as in application before
E.T.O./Motor Registration Authority.

f) That in the written statement of the respondent No. 2


challenged his version and categorically admitted that
he sold the said vehicle to the petitioner in lieu of
Rs. 590,000/-. Out of this consideration, the respondent
No. 2 had received a sum of Rs. 186,000/- and
delivered the possession of the said vehicle to the
petitioner and Rs. 404,000/- are still outstanding against
the petitioner. This admission of respondent No. 2 itself
is enough to make the case in hand to be of a civil
nature.
g) That criminal proceedings are initiated in a civil matter
illegally and unlawfully, just to pressurise the petitioner
and others nominated in the F.I.R.

h) That the opinion given by respondent No. 5 is arbitrary,


capricious and fanciful in the given circumstances.

i) That the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 4


having no value in the eyes of law, particularly in the
presence of a conclusion on the file that no occurrence,
whatsoever ever took place as stated in the F.I.R.

j) That orders dated 8.1.2002 and 15.1.2002 respectively


passed by the respondent No. 6 are a result of non-
reading and mis-reading of the facts on the file,
especially when both the requests brought before
respondent No. 6 by respondent No. 4 were not duly
forwarded by any Inspector (Legal) of the Court. Both
the orders were passed in haste and without application
of judicial mind.

k) That the petitioner is bonafide purchaser from


Muhammad Iqbal Javed and involved in this case under
the malafide intention and ulterior motive.

g) That there is sufficient documentary evidence on the


file to prove the petitioner and others that they had not
committed any offence.

h) That the respondent No. 2 has roots in the bureaucracy


and police. By taking the benefits of his relations, the
respondent No. 2 is causing illegal and unlawful
harassment to the petitioner.

12. That the petitioner has left with no other adequate, alternate,
efficacious and speedy remedy except to invoke the
Constitutional jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Hence, this
petition.
In view of the above submissions, it is
respectfully prayed that the case F.I.R.
No. 223/2000 dated 26.8.2000 U/s 381-A at P.S.
Gaggo District Vehari, opinion of respondent No.
5 and orders dated 8.1.2002 & 15.1.2002 may
please be quashed in the interest of justice.
It is further prayed that any order,
direction, writ or relief which this Hon’ble Court
deems fit, may graciously be awarded to meet the
ends of justice.

Humble Petitioner,

Dated: ___________

Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176

CERTIFICATE: -
Certified as per instructions of the client,
that this is the 2nd petition on the subject
matter. Office is requested to put up the files
of W.P. No. 10802/2000, W.P. 864/2001 &
1953/2001 with this petition.
Advocate
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

W.P. No. ______________/2002

Amir Zada Vs The State etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Amir Zada S/o Haji Raza Khan, caste Pathan, R/o Kot
Haji Gulzar, Kamal Bazar, Dera Ismail Khan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby


solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above petition are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief and nothing has
been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of February 2002 that the contents of this
affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2002


In
W.P. No.____________/2002

Amir Zada Vs The State etc.

APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF


ORDERS DATED 8.1.2002 AND 15.1.2002.

Respectfully Sheweth: -

1. That the above-captioned petition is being filed before this


Hon’ble Court. The contents of which may be considered as
part and parcel of this application.

2. That a civil matter is converted into a criminal one just to


pressurise and influence the petitioner and others, nominated
in the F.I.R.

3. That the both the above mentioned orders have no value in the
eyes of law when already a conclusion of investigation is on
the file that no such occurrence has ever taken place.

4. That the request for both these orders was made with malafide
intention and ulterior motive.

5. That both these orders were procured by the connivance of


police and complainant.

6. That no legal formalities had been completed before obtaining


these orders.
7. That both these orders were passed in haste and without
application of judicial mind.

In view of the above submissions, it is humbly


prayed that the operation of both the above mentioned
orders may please be suspended till the final disposal of
the case.

Humble Applicant/Petitioner
Dated: ___________

Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2002


In
W.P. No.____________/2002

Amir Zada Vs The State etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE


FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES.
=========================================

Respectfully Sheweth:-
That certified copies of Annexures “A to P & S” are
not available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the
same have been annexed with the Petition, which are true
copies of original documents.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble


court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies
of documents.

Humble Applicant

Dated: __________
(AMIR ZADA)
Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2002


In
W.P. No.____________/2002

Amir Zada Vs The State etc.

APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF ORDERS.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Amir Zada S/o Haji Raza Khan, caste Pathan, R/o Kot
Haji Gulzar, Kamal Bazar, Dera Ismail Khan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby


solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above application are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has
been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of February 2002 that the contents of this
affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

W.P. No.____________/2002

Amir Zada Vs The State etc.

INDEX

S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES


1 Urgent Form
2 Stamp Paper worth Rs. 500/-
3 Writ Petition.
4 Affidavit
5 Copy of registration. A
6 Copies of application & Notice. B&C
7 Copies of notice, plaint and written D, E & F
statement.
8 Copy of W.P., Order, F.I.R. and G, H, J & K
cancellation report.
9 Copy of application dated 27.9.2000, L, M, N & O
order dated 29.9.2000, Revision
Petition dated 5.10.2000 and
impugned judgment dated 13.1.2001
10 Copy of order dated 26.9.2001. P
11 Copy of order dated 8.1.2002 & Q&R
15.1.2002.
12 Copy of report. S
13 Dispensation Application.
14 Affidavit.
15 Application for suspension of orders.
16 Affidavit.
17 Vakalatnama

PETITIONER
Dated: ____________
Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176