“ 4. In a decision in Kilparthi Suri Appa Rao v. State of A.P. Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad and another, 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 900 (A.P.) = 2004(2) ALT (Crl.) 333 (AP), this court held that registration of F.I.R. by the police in connection with seizure of property under Section 102 Cr.P.C., is improper and unwarranted, because question of registration an F.I.R. arises only when information relating to cognizable offence is given to the Officer-in-charge of Police Station. It was further held that suspicion of a property being stolen per se does not amount to commission of a cognizance offence. In the above case also seizure was effected more than four months prior to filing of the criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and it was not even alleged that the police had any information or complaint from anyone in respect of the said property and so prima facie there was no cognizable offence with regard to the seized property and when there is no cognizable offence, question of registering the F.I.R. does not arise. In the present case also, no report or complaint is received by the police from anyone in respect of the seized property and, on the other hand, the investigation discloses that the first petitioner is owner of the seized property and petitioners 2 and 3 were his employees and they were carrying the same on the instructions of the first petitioner, duly on the transport vouchers and other doc uments and if that is so, question of continuing further proceedings against the petitioner does not arise, especially when there is no allegation of commission of any cognizable offence against any of the petitioners with respect to subject property.”
