P L D 2006 Peshawar 19 (PLP)

IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.

E.F.U. General Insurance Company through its representative Muhammad Ahmad Noon has filed instant quashment petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898), against order dated 10-2-2005 and 23-5-2005, passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, in case of `superdari' of a Motor Car bearing Registration No.STG-5501, Model 1993.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Motor Car in question along with its registration book was stolen from Rawalpindi, where F.I.R. No.200 dated 1-6-2002, under section 381-A, P.P.C. was lodged in Police Station New Town, Rawalpindi at the instance of Sutlan Aamir son of Chaudhry Allah Dad, resident of Satellite Town, Rawalpindi. This car was taken into possession by Police Station, Suburb Peshawar, vide F.I.R. No.422 dated 22-7-2004 under sections 324/411/420, P.P.C. read with Article 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.

3. The petitioner-company moved an application before Judicial Magistrate, Peshawar for `superdari' of the said car on the basis that being an Insurance Company and having paid the insurance amount to its owner, Sultan Aamir, resident of Rawalpindi, it had the locus standi for the possession of the car. The application was not accepted and the same was rejected vide order dated 10-2-2005. A criminal revision was filed there against, which was also dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar vide order dated 23-5-2005.

4. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Saleem Toru, Advocate for the petitioner-company and Mr. Muhammad Saeed Khan, Additional Advocate-General for the State, in the light of the material on record.

5. A perusal of the record would reveal that the vehicle in question was purchased by one Sultan Aamir son of Chaudhary Allah Dad, resident of Satellite Town, Rawalpindi and the same was insured with the petitioner-company for a period from 9-10-2001 to 8-10-2002, vide policy No.84418234/10/2001. The Courts below have failed to take into consideration the fact that after payment of the insurance amount and obtaining the `subrogation', the petitioner-company is lawful owner of the vehicle in question. Admittedly, there is nothing on the record to show that the vehicle was used in the commission of the crime with the knowledge of the petitioner-company. The insurance policy and the `subrogation' placed on the file would prima facie show the petitioner-company to be the owner of the vehicle in question at least in the absence of any rival claimant. Apart from this, retention of vehicle in police custody for an indefinite period would also serve no useful purpose. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the petition is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. The custody of the car in question shall be delivered to the duly authorized representative of the petitioner-company on `superdari' on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 to the effect that he would not dispose of the said car till further orders passed by the competent Court and would produce it before the competent Court, as when required. However, this order will not prejudice the right of a rival claimant, if any, with a better title. H.B.T./568/P?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.