Allowed

Kshatriya Vinay Kumar Singh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Dec 2021CRLRC/621/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision challenging the dismissal of a petition for interim custody of seized property. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court set aside the lower court's order and remanded the matter to grant interim custody of the specific seized ornaments to the claimant-owner upon imposition of conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing the petition for interim custody set aside; matter remanded to Magistrate to grant interim custody of seized property subject to conditions.

Kshatriya Vinay Kumar Singh Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF^DECEIUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 616 OF 2020

¶6

Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 of Code of Criminal^Procedure against the Order made in Crl.MP No.217 of 2020 in Cr.No.425 of^{2019 (of} P.S.Shadnagar) daled 2211012020 on the file of the Court of the Additional^Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Rajendra Hanumanthu Nangre, S/o Hanumanthu Nangre, Aged 59^years, Occ. Business (Sona melties), R/o H.No.1084, K.R. Hospital Road, [V'lysore, Karnataka State

¶9

...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/CLAIMANT

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana, rep.by SHO, P.S. Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar District, through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

¶12

Sunil Shahaji Khatam, S/o.Shahaji, aged 33 years, presently R/o.H.No.1084, K.R.Hospital Road, Mysore, Karnataka State. (R2 impleaded as per Court order dated 0410212021 in lA No.1/2021 in

¶13

Crl. R.C.No.61 6/2020)

¶14

...RESPONDE NTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of grounds of Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to order interim release of the seized gold and silver ornaments deposited with the court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar in Cr.No.42512019 of PS Shadnaga. pass

¶17

For the Petitioner : SRI J.PRABHAKAR, Advocate

¶18

Forthe Respondent No.1 : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

For the Respondent No.2: SMT K.KALYANI, Advocate

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶23

Criminal Revision Case No.615 of 2O2O

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the^{petitioner/claimant,} to set aside the^order, dated 22.10.2020,^passed in Crl.M.P.No.21.7 of²⁰²⁰ in^Cr.No.425 of 2019 of Shadnagar Police Station, by the^{Additionalludicial} Maglstrate of First Class.

¶26

Heard Sri J.Prabhakar learned senior counsel appearing^for the petitioner/claimant, Smt. K.Kalyani, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and learned Public Prosecutor appearing^for the 1st respondent-State. Perused the record.

¶27

The^petitioner herein is claimant and^owner of^{the seized} property in Cr.No.425 of 2019. He has filed an application^under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C.^{vide Crl.M.P.No'217of 2020 in} Cr.No.425 of^{2019beforethe Court below seekinginterimcustody} of the said^{property. The Court below has dismissed the said} petition vide order dated^{22.10.2020 on the groundthat the} contents of the^{panchanamaand remand report doesnot clearly} disclose that^{he is the owner of the said properties until trial is} commenced,^{if the petitionerappearsbefore the said Court and} identifies^{his property in the witnessbox and his ownership} claiming his^{rights over the property decided by the said Court'}

¶28

The^{petitionerherein has impleaded the defacto-} complainant^{in the presentRevisionas respondent No'2' who filed}

¶29

¶30

¶31

affidavit stating that he has no objection in releasing the property in favour of the petitioner herein.

¶32

The^petitioner herein has also filed third party affidavit of Sri Sachin Vilas Khadam, the son-in-law of the petitloner herein and also L.W.6. He has also stated that he has no objection in releasing the property in favour of the petitioner herein.

¶33

it is relevant to note that the^petitioner herein has filed Crl.P.No.1513 of 2020 seeking interim custody of the cash, seized in the present crime. The said Crl.P.No.No.1513 of 2020 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 21.09.2020 with certain conditions.

¶34

The Hon'ble Apex Court in SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI V/s. STATE OF GUJARAT1 and this Court in catena of decisions, held that seized property has to be returned to the owner on verification of the ownership and documents and on lmposition of certain terms and conditions. It was also held that keeping the seized property in the custody of Police will not serve any purpose. In the^present case, the Court below, without considering the said ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, has dismissed Crl.M.P,No.217 of 2020 vide order dated 22.10.2020.

¶35

B. In view of the said submissions and also considering the no objection affidavits filed by the 2nd respondent and third party (1.W.6), this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The Impugned order dated 22.70.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2t7 of 2020 in Cr.No.425 of 2019 of Shadnagar Police Station, by the Additional ludicial Magistrate of First Class, is hereby set aside and the matter '. lzoouy^{to scc zst}

¶36

is remanded back to the said Magistrate with a direction to give interim custody of the seized property specifically mentioned in the panchanama anc also list of properties mentioned by the petitioner in his application filed under Section 451 oF the Cr.p.C. on imposition of certain conditions to his satisfaction.

¶37

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal

¶38

Revision Case shall stand closed.

¶39

//TRUE COPY//

¶40

Sd/-B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR d,

¶41

SECTION OFFICER

¶42

¶43

The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First^{Class, Shadnagar.}

¶44

The Station House Officer, Shadnagar^{Police Station, Shadnagar.}

¶45

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High^{Court for the State of Telangana,} Hyderabad (OUT)

¶46

One CC to Smt. K.Kalyani, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶47

One CC to Sri J.Prabhakar,^{Advocate (OPUC)}

¶48

Two CD Copies

¶49

One Spare Copy

^^Ki. L _-K

HIGH COURT

DATED:14112PCt21

ORDER

Zflll<br>)
o 1$ 0EC20?1
/
\ \i

¶55

CRLRC.No.616^{of 2020}

¶56

Allowing the Crl.R.C.

¶57

V. rr\u, 0

Kshatriya Vinay Kumar Singh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kshatriya Vinay Kumar Singh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Afzal Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Seema Tarannum Vs The State of Telangana

Yerram Srikanth Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

D. Ramesh Vs State of Telangana

Rajendra Hanumanthu Nangre Vs State of Telangana

Shaik Mohammed Saleem alias Mahaboob Vs State of Telangana