Disposed

Vajarapu Savithri at Sayamma v. Neelapu Murali Mohan Reddi at Murali Reddi

Andhra Pradesh HC29 Jul 2024CRLP/1866/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defacto complainant challenged the revisional court's confirmation of the magistrate's order directing claimants to approach the civil court for return of gold articles pledged by the accused with a finance company. The High Court set aside the order and directed the trial judge to conduct a fresh enquiry under Section 452 CrPC into due diligence and title claims before disposal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vajarapu Savithri at Sayamma Vs Neelapu Murali… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

<br>

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

o
■j.

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1866 OF 2021

¶9

Between:

¶10

Vajarapu Savithri AT Sayamma, W/ o Prasad @ Prasad Rao, Aged about 38 years, Ccc- House wife, R/o.D.No..7-84, Bhauanagar, Meliaputti Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District

¶11

...Petitioner/Petitioner/PWI

¶12

AND

¶13

Neelapu Murali Mohan Reddi AT Murali Reddi, S/o Danayya Reddi @ Daneswara Reddi, Aged about 30 years, R/o Boyaveedi,^Mandasa Mandasa Mandal, Srikakulam District

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court, of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.

¶15

..Respondent/respondent

¶16

The Muthoot Finance Corporation Limited, Palasa Branch, Srikakulam District Represented by its Branch Manager/incharge

¶17

Respondent No.3 is impleaded as per the Court order^dated

¶18

19.04.2021 inl.A.No.1 of 2021 in Crl.P.No.1866 of 2021.

¶19

...Proposed Implead Respondent No.3

¶20

¶21

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for records relating^{totheorderofthe} learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) ActCum- IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 58 of 2018 dated 18.01.2021 in confirming the orders passed in C.C No. 84 of 2013 dated 27.08.2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kotabommali in so far as “the PW1 Savithri is at liberty to approach the civil court to receive M04 to MOO as per the procedure established” and also “until then M.04 to M.O 9 will be in custody of court” is concerned, and quash the same by allowing the application filed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 58 of 2018.

¶22

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing^{theMemorandum} of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and None Appeared for the Respondents No.1,3.

¶23

The Court made the following Order:

¶24

V t

¶25

APHC010106532021

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶27

[3396]

¶28

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT

¶30

HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶31

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1866 of 2021

¶32

Between:

¶33

Vajarapu Savithri @ Sayamma

¶34

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶35

AND Neelapu Murali Mohan Reddi Murali Reddi and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLA^INANT(S) Others

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶37

l.TADDI NAGESWARA RAO

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶39

The Court made the following:

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

The instant Criminal Petition has been filed by^{thePetitioner/defacto} complainant seeking quashment of the impugned order^{dated18.01.2021} passed in Crl.R.P.No.58 of 2018 on the file of the^{CourtofSpecialJudge} for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-Cum-IV^Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shkakulam, which confirmed the order dated 27.08.2018 passed in C.C.No.84 of 2013 on the file^{oftheCourtofJudicial} Magistrate of First Class, Kotabommali, giving liberty^{totheComplainantto} approach the Civil Court to receive the case property (M.Os.4 to 9).

¶42

Petitioner herein was the de facto complainant, respondent No.1 herein was the accused in C.C.No.84 of 2013, Respondent^No.2herein is

¶43

¶44

the State, Respondent No.3 is the Muthoot Finance Corporation Limited, who claimed the rights over the property as the gold articles are pledged by the accused for availing loan.

¶45

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order passed by the learned Magistrate in CC No.84 of 2013 in not ordering return of property to the Petitioner/Complainant and giving liberty to her to approach the Civil Court since there is a rival claim from the accused and respondent No.3/Muthoot Finance, the Complainant approached the^{DistrictCourt} in Crl.R.P.No.58 of 2018, which was dismissed confirming^theorder of the learned Magistrate.

¶46

Being aggrieved, the present Criminal Petition is filed on the following grounds:

¶47

a. As per Section 452 of the Code, after trial is concluded,^theCourt has to order for destruction/disposal/delivery of the property to the persons, who are entitled to and the revisional Court is erred in confirming the Order passed by the learned Magistrate ignoring the Provisions^{ofSection452of} the Code. Learned Magistrate having believed the case of the Complainant and had convicted the accused for the offence under Section 420 I PC, ought to have ordered the return of the property to the Complainant.

¶48

Heard Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for

¶49

respondent No.2/State. Notice which was sent to respondent No.1 is returned unserved with an endorsement ‘addresse left^{withoutinstructions’.} Notice sent to respondent No.3 is served, but none^represented.

¶50

Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit^thatthe learned Magistrate having convicted the accused for the offence^{underSection420} IPC ought to have ordered return of property(MOs.4^to9)tothe Petitioner/ Complainant. Instead, it is pointed out that a liberty^{isgiventothePetitioner} to approach the Civil Court since there is rival claim of title from the accused as well as Respondent No.3/Muthoot Finance,^{wherethearticles} were recovered on the confession of the respondent No.1/Accused.

¶51

Learned counsel would further submit that when the^property has been seized in a crime on the basis of the confession^{oftheAccused,the} Court has to pass order under Section 452 of the Code^{returningthesaid} articles to the complainant. Learned counsel finally submits that the respondent No. 1/accused was convicted for the offence^{underSection420} IPC, who pledged M.Os.4 to 9 with respondent no.3/Muthoot^Finance. It is also stated that when it is a property relating, to^{theCrime,respondent} No.3/Muthoot Finance has no role to claim their amount against the property (M.Os.4 to 9) which are gold articles taken^{bytheaccusedby} cheating the Complainant and further pledged them with^{respondentNo.3.}

¶52

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that when respondent No.3 having received the articles in pledge gave loan to the accused, with that security, they have every right to claim to the extent of that loan over the said articles. However, requested that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶53

Now the point that would emerge for determination is; Whether the Court below is justified to direct the complainant and other claimants to approach the Civil Court to claim property M04 to M09? POINT:

¶54

Needless to say, when a person committed an act of taking away the property of another with a dishonest intention, without their knowledge, he is said to have been committed the offence of theft. At the same time, when a person, who was found with the stolen property, failed to justify his possession, may turn as a receiver of the said property, if he had knowledge that it is stolen. It is not uncommon to see in cases of theft or cheating, there is a possibility for the accused to pledge such articles with finance companies, who offer loans against the gold jewellery to obtain loans. This becomes a safe zone to run away from the case. In case finance company offered the loan against such gold jewellery without verifying the genuineness of ownership by due dilligence, they cannot claim any lien over the stolen goods relating to a^{criminalcase.}

¶55

At the same time, the Investigating Officer has^{goteveryauthorityto} seize a case property irrespective of the fact that the said property^has been pledged with a finance company by the accused. In case, if the finance company thoroughly ascertained the ownership^{ofthesaidgold} articles before offering loan, their rights are to^{beprotectedtotheextentof} the loan due over such articles since it is an bonafide^{actofaCompanyby} taking reasonable care received the articles believing^{thattheaccusedisa} real owner of such property.

¶56

Indeed, it is a grey area. The fact remains that^{financecompanies,} who are offering gold loans by pledging gold, run the risk^{byacceptingthe} gold articles from the person whose credentials doubtful^{leadstosuspicion.} These type of frauds may be unearthed only when the^{originalowner,who} lost such articles makes a Complaint to the police.^{Asstatedabove,the} power of police to seize such articles relating to^{thecriminalcasefromthe} bailee/finance company cannot be disputed. At the same^time,whenthe accused, who himself, has no right over the property,^{hecannotconvey} better rights to the finance company. The rights of^{thefinancecompany} IS saved only when they could establish that they have^{takeneverycareand} acted with due diligence to ascertain the credentials^{ofthepersons,who} pledged that articles and there is substantial proof^{thatthearticleswhich} are pledged certainly belonged to the said person. In the^absenceofany

¶57

such exercise of due diligence on the part of the finance company, they cannot claim any right over the articles which are pledged, simply on the ground that those articles are pledged with them.

¶58

For ready reference. Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is extracted infra':

¶59

Section 452. Order for disposal of property at conclusion^oftrial.—

¶60

(1) When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence. (2) An order may be made under sub-section (1) for the delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition that he executes a bond, with or without securities, to the satisfaction of the Court, engaging to restore such property to the Court if the order made under sub-section (1) is modified or set aside on appeal or revision. (3) A Court of Session may, instead of itself making^{anorderundersub} section (1), direct the property to be delivered to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who shall thereupon deal with it in the manner provided in sections 457, 458 and 459.

¶61

(4) Except where the property is livestock or is subject to speedy and natural decay, or where a bond has been executed in pursuance of sub section (2), an order made under sub-section (1) shall^not be^carriedout for two months, or when an appeal is presented, until such appeal has been disposed of.

¶62

(5) In this section, the term “property” includes, in the case of property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed, not only such property as has been originally in the possession or under the control of any party, but also any property into or^{forwhichthesame} may have been converted or exchanged, and anything acquired by such conversion or exchange, whether immediately or otherwise.

¶63

Coming to the facts of the present case, it is^{acaseofawoman} being deceived by the accused, who reportedly took her gold articles on the

• I

pretext of obtaining loan for purchase of golden idol^{of‘AyyappaSwamy’} and then the said gold idol ‘Ayyappa Swamy’ turned^{tobeaspuriousone.} On the other hand, the accused had taken away her gold articles and pledged the same in respondent No.3/Muthoot finance.^{Believingthewords} of the accused, the Complainant has given her gold^{articlesbecauseshe} was not having money and later this gold idol turned^{tobeaspuriousone.} In the light of the provisions of Section 452 of the^{Code,learnedMagistrate} ought to have conducted enquiry under Section 452 of the Code to ascertain due diligence on the part of Respondent No.3^inclaiming right over the property to the extent of the amount due and^{alsotoascertainthe} right of the accused and his ownership over the property^{vis-a-vistheclaim} of the Complainant over the property. In cases, where^{suchanexercise} does not clear the cloud of title, if present, it is apposite to leave the matter for remedy before a civil court. Without doing such^{exercise,directingthe} parties to approach a civil court at the first stretch,^{wouldleadtomultiplicity} of litigation. That apart, having believed the case^{ofthecomplainantand} after convicting the Accused for the offence under Section 420 I PC, redirecting to approach a civil court at the instance^{ofathirdpartywith} whom the Accused alleged to have pledged the articles cannot be countenanced.

¶68

¶69

'V'

¶70

Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, setting aside the

¶71

impugned order, and directing the learned trial Judge^{todecideafresh.No} costs.

¶72

¶73

To,

¶74

Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ■ » ^ * A Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶75

//TRUE COPY//

¶76

r SECTION OFFICER

¶77

The Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-

¶78

Cum- IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam.

¶79

The Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kotabommali.

¶80

One CC to Sri. Taddi Nageswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶81

Two CC to Public Prosecutor High Court, of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT]

¶82

Three CD Copies

vna

HIGH COURT

DATED:30/07/2024

ORDER

CRLP.No.1866 of 2021

O
S 2 “I JAN 2125 J
^ Current Section

¶91

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION

Vajarapu Savithri at Sayamma v. Neelapu Murali Mohan Reddi at Murali Reddi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vajarapu Savithri at Sayamma v. Neelapu Murali Mohan Reddi at Murali Reddi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.S.v.C.Varma Vs Vice Chairman and Manging Director

Ganapaneni Siva Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sk Khader Basha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Thirumalasetty Kondaiah Vs The State of A.P

Thirumalasetty Kondaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tanakanti Eswaramma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh