Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Writ Petition No.5277 of 1986, decided on 26th November, 1986.
---Art. 199--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 154--Registration of case--Legal obligation--Agreement of sale of vehicle between petitioner and one of respondents not placed on record--No receipt of part payment of sale price produced--Documents of vehicle not placed on record--Nothing available to show delivery of vehicle to buyer--Copy of F.I.R. allegedly lodged by respondent also not placed on record--Case regarding same vehicle already registered at Police Station- Constitutional jurisdiction, held, could not be exercised in favour of petitioner in circumstances.
Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioner.
Ghulam Mustafa petitioner by means of this constitutional petition seeks direction to respondent No. l to register case against respondents Nos.2 and 3 and investigate the same in accordance with law.
2. The petitioner claims that Haji Muhammad Ramzan was owner of Mazda Wagon No.1HB-2105. He sold the same to Gulzar Ahmad respondent No.2 for a sum of Rs.90,000 on instalments. The vehicle in turn was purchased by the petitioner and a sum of Rs.10,000 was paid by him Gulzar Ahmad respondent. It was settled between the petitioner and Gulzar Ahmad that balance amount payable by Gulzar Ahmad to Haji Muhammad Ramzan owner of the vehicle shall be paid by the petitioner. The petitioner after taking delivery of the vehicle handed over the same to Muhammad Khalid Mechanic for repairs and paid him Rs.15,000 for this purpose. On 11-11-1986 pursuant to a report lodged by Gulzar Ahmad at Police Station Sharqpur, Muhammad Yaqub A.S.I. recovered the vehicle from the workshop of Muhammad Khalid. The petitioner approached the S.H.O Police Station Sharqpur for registration of case against Gulzar Ahmad complainant. Muhammad Yaqub A.S.I. for taking away the aforesaid vehicle without any legal justification but of no avail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.1 is under legal obligation to register a case as contemplated under section 154, Cr.P.C. on the disclosure of the commission of a cognizable offence against the accused.
The petitioner has neither placed on the record the agreement of sale executed between him and Gulzar Ahmad in respect of the vehicle in question nor regular receipt of Rs.10,000 showing that he has made part payment of the sale price to Ghulam Ahmad. He has also not produced registration book or other relevant documents relating to the aforesaid vehicle to show that at any stage the vehicle was delivered to him. He has also not placed on the record copy of the F.I.R. allegedly lodged by Gulzar Ahmad respondent at Police Station Sharqpur to show that the same was not registered against him or Muhammad Khalid.
In these circumstances I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner when according to his own showing a case stands already registered in respect of the aforesaid vehicle at Police I Station Sharqpur. If the petitioner has any claim to the vehicle in question he may approach the Investigating Officer who can take into consideration his version as well.
4. Subject to the observation made above this petition is dismissed in limine.
S. A. Petition dismissed in limine.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer