2012 PLP 2718 (YLR)

NISAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH, J.

Through this Criminal Revision Application, the applicant Bashir Ahmed has assailed two orders dated 7-8-2009 passed by learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad respectively in Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos.200 of 2009 and 568 of 2009 whereby the motorcycle in question was released on superdari, to Ghulam Shabir, the respondent No.2, while the similar prayer of the applicant Bashir Ahmed was declined. According to learned counsel for the applicant; the motorcycle in question was purchased by the applicant Bashir Ahmed on payment of instalments, from a leasing company but subsequently the police recovered such motorcycle from applicant in connection with Crime No.6 of 2009 that was registered by the respondent No.2 Ghulam Shabir at Police Station Hali Road claiming that he is the owner of the motorcycle and the same was allegedly snatched from him by the applicant Bashir Ahmed. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that since such case/Crime No.6 of 2009 was subsequently disposed of in "C" class on the recommendation of the police and approval of the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 2-3-2009, therefore, the motorcycle was to be returned to the applicant Bashir Ahmed when no such case was lying pending in any Court. On the other hand, the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 namely Ghulam Shabir is that such motorcycle was purchased by the respondent No.2 after making full payment of all instalments and such certificate was issued by leasing company in favour of the respondent No.2 and lastly such motorcycle was also registered in the name of respondent No.2 Ghulam Shabir by the concerned authorities, therefore, he was the lawful owner of the motorcycle in question. He further submits that though F.I.R. of respondent No.2 was disposed of but such disposal does not say that such F.I.R. was false etc. as it was simply disposed of for the reason that dispute between the parties is of civil nature. He further submits that the possession of the motorcycle in question was with the respondent No.2 before the F.I.R. was lodged by him and therefore, such application under section 516-A Cr.P.C. was also allowed by the learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad considering all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Whereas the contention of learned Addl. P.G is that since the documents of ownership are with the respondent No.2 namely Ghulam Shabir and he is also enjoying the possession of the motorcycle in question, therefore, the applicant Bashir Ahmed is at liberty to approach the proper forum to establish his claim on the basis of alleged documents and he may also join the concerned person as party, who received the amount and issued such receipts to him. I have considered the above submissions and also perused the record. Since the impugned orders dated 7-8-2009 were passed by learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad after hearing the parties and the relevant documents of ownership issued by the concerned authorities, are in favour of the respondent No.2, who is also in possession of the motorcycle in question therefore, applicant Bashir Ahmed on the basis of alleged receipts which are in his possession, may approach the appropriate forum to establish his claim and to recover the amount, allegedly paid by him to the company. However, the learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to cite any authority to support his claim in respect of this peculiar type of case in which the property was released to the respondent No.2 when his Criminal case/F.I.R. was already disposed of and that order of the disposal, was not challenged before any court. In the circumstances, there appears no justification to interfere with the orders of the trial Court, which seem to be proper and reasonable and accordingly, this Criminal Revision Application is hereby dismissed, along with pending application. MWA/B-7/K Application dismissed.