Allowed

A.Kishore Kumar v. The State of Ap

Telangana HC25 Feb 2013CRLRC/10/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the Single Judge allowed the release of a seized Scorpio vehicle to its registered owner, the petitioner, for interim custody. The release was conditioned upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee and an undertaking not to alienate the vehicle. The dispute arose over ownership of the vehicle after it was auctioned and subsequently reported stolen.

What did the court decide?

Release of the seized Scorpio vehicle to the petitioner for interim custody on conditions including furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/- and an undertaking not to alienate the vehicle.

A.Kishore Kumar Vs The State of Ap — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Revision Case No.10 of 2013

¶3

(Dated: 25-02-2013)

¶4

Between:

¶5

A.Kishore Kumar S/o Venkateswarlu A n d State of A.P., rep. by it’s Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P Hyderabad

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

...Respondent

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶9

Criminal Revision Case No.10 of 2013

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 16-11-2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4020 of 2012 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the application filed under Section 451 read with 457 Cr.P.C seeking release of Scorpio bearing No.AP-04-P-0009.

¶12

2. The petitioner purchased Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. AP-04-P-0009 by availing loan from HDFC Bank Limited and hypothecated the vehicle to the HDFC Bank. Consequent on his failure to pay the monthly intallments; the vehicle came to be repossessed by the HDFC Bank Limited. After repossessing, the vehicle came to be put to auction in online through M.Junction Services Limited, Auto Junction on 10-7-2012. G.Sairam-2^nd respondent offered Rs.5,07,000/-and his bid came to be accepted. Thereupon, he paid Rs.5,07,000/- to the HDFC Bank Limited. On receiving the bid amount, the HDFC Bank Limited delivered possession of the vehicle to him through Utta Brahmanandam. The 2^nd respondent-G.Sairam, in turn, sold the vehicle to one Purnachander Rao on 4.8.2010 for Rs.5,00,000/-. While so, the petitioner lodged a private complaint in the Court of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad alleging that some unknown

¶13

persons committed theft of the vehicle on 21-6-2010 at about 10.30 A.M. The complaint came to be forwarded to the S.H.O., Ramgopalpet P.S., under Section 156(3)Cr.P.C. The S.H.O., Ramgopalpet P.S. registered a case in Crime No.255 of 2010 for the offence under Section 395 read with 34 IPC. The petitioner also lodged a report with the Station House Officer, Chintakomma Dinne Police Station alleging inter alia that certain papers relating to the stolen vehicle have been manipulated and clearance has been obtained from R.T.A., Kadapa. Basing on the said report, the S.H.O., Chintakomma Dinne P.S., registered a case in Crime No.134 of 2010 on 03.10.2010 for the offences under Sections 419, 468 and 471 IPC. While so, the 2^nd respondent-G.Sairam surrendered the vehicle before the Station House Officer, Ramgopalpet P.S., on 6-10-2012 and thereby, the vehicle came to be seized under the cover of panchanama. Various writ petitions came to be filed by G.Sairam-2^nd respondent and the HDFC Bank Limited. All the writ petitions came to be disposed of by this Court by a common order dated 04.9.2012. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order passed in W.P.Nos.28487, 31461 of 2010, 8643 & 11670 of 2011, which reads as hereunder:-

¶14

“ I consider it appropriate, therefore, to direct the Station House Officers of Chintakomma Dinne Police Station, Y.S.R.District and Ramgopalpet Police Station, Secunderabad, to investigate into Crime Nos.134 and 255 of 2010 respectively without being influenced by the observations made in Crl.M.P.No.1023 of 2011 dated 30.8.2011, and complete investigation within a period of three months from today. All the interim orders passed in the aforesaid Writ Petitions stand vacated”.

¶15

3. The petitioner approached XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad by moving Crl.M.P.No.4020 of 2012 under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C seeking release of Scorpio

¶16

vehicle bearing No. AP-04-P-0009 for interim custody. The learned Magistrate after putting on notice to the accused and on hearing the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for A-4A.Raja and A-5-Ananthraj Bhatt came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not deserve for release of the vehicle for interim custody pending investigation in Crime No.134 of 2010 of Chinta Komma Dinne P.S. and Crime No.255 of 2010 of Ramgopalpet P.S., and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the petition, by order dated 16-112012. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case.

¶17

4. Heard Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent-State and Sri Ch.Ravindra Babu, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶18

5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is the registered owner of the Scorpio vehicle bearing No. AP-04-P-0009 and therefore, he is entitled for release of the vehicle for interim custody pending investigation.

¶19

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the order impugned in the revision.

¶20

7. Learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent submits that the 2^nd respondent being fed up with various criminal cases regarding the vehicle surrendered the same to the Station House Officer, Ramgopalpet P.S., and he has no objection for the vehicle being released to the petitioner.

¶21

8. The petitioner did not choose to implead the 2^nd respondent as a

¶22

party in Crl.M.P.No.4020 of 2012. The trial Court pointed out this lacuna in paragraph (6) of the order and it is thus:-

¶23

“ G.Sairam who is the auction purchaser during the auction conducted by HDFC, is not a party to this petition. Unfortunately, he is not made as a party to this petition. As per the counter filed by HDFC Bank, G.Sairam stated to have purchased the vehicle in question by paying required amount in public auction being successful bidder. Without hearing G.Sairam, court cannot pass any order in this petition. Though A7 bank has taken objection in its counter petitioner has not taken any steps to make G.Sairam as party to this petition. This is one of the grounds to dismiss this petition. There is dispute with regard to ownership of vehicle in question. When there is serious dispute relating to ownership of vehicle it is not safe to order its custody in favour of petitioner herein. It is true that earlier petitioner was a registered owner of vehicle in question. Since he had not paid instalments regularly the vehicle was seized by HDFC bank in whose favour it was hypothecated. Unless investigation is completed and police file charge sheet in above two crimes it is not safe to order custody of vehicle in favour of petitioner. “

¶24

9. It is a matter of record that HDFC Bank Limited, which financed the petitioner to purchase the vehicle has realized Rs.5,00,000/- from the 2^nd respondent-G.Sairam. Learned counsel appearing for G.Sairam reports no objection for release of the vehicle. As on this day, the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle. Of course, the petitioner has not discharged the loan raised by him from HDFC Bank Limited. If the vehicle is allowed to remain in the custody of the police, there is every likelihood of it’s utility being lost. The lacuna, which has been pointed out by the trial Court has now been rectified by the petitioner by bringing on record G.Sairam as party respondent in this revision. In that view of the matter, the seized vehicle is ordered to be released to the petitioner for interim custody, subject to the following conditions:-

¶25

(1) The petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee for Rs.5,00,000/- to the satisfaction of XI Additional Chief

¶26

Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad;

¶27

(2) The petitioner shall place on record his undertaking before XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad that he shall not alienate, transfer or encumber or change the physical features of the vehicle;

¶28

(3) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the trial Court, the S.H.O., Chintakomma Dinne P.S., in respect of investigation relating to Crime No.134 of 2010 and the S.H.O., Ramgopalpet P.S., in respect of Crime No.255 of 2010.

¶29

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

¶30

_____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J

¶31

Dt.25-02-2013 RAR

A.Kishore Kumar v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Kishore Kumar v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.B.Supraja Vs B.Srikanth

Smt. Balne Chaithnaya, Vs Balne Hariprasad

Dandumenu Veera Veni Vs Bagulla Yesudanam

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Patchava Padma

Banda Ramachandra Reddy Vs Uppu Ramesh

Ahmad , Mohamad Vs v.Sreenivasulu