Disposed

Radha Padmaja, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Jul 2023CRLRC/2022/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three criminal revision petitions were filed challenging orders dismissing applications for interim custody of seized gold articles. The High Court held that ownership is a complex triable issue and directed the petitioners to approach the Trial Court now that the main case is concluded to determine ownership.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petitions were disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to approach the appropriate Court for remedies regarding the ownership of seized property.

Radha Padmaja, Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs 2017 0F 201s 2021 0F 201s AND 20220F 2015

¶8

CRLRC.No. 2O17 ot 2015

¶9

Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., against the Orders dated 22.06.2015^passed in Crl.M.P.No. 3962 of 2014 in C.C.No. 179 of 2014 on the file of the Xll Additional Chief tr/etropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Sankeerthan Kodamagalla, S/o. Gopi Kodamagalla, Age: 26 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, Rl/o. H.no. 1 -93 1 2 I N B,F lal no.5, Vijayaprathap Apartments, Atchyuthareddy Marg, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad.

¶12

.,.PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana,, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad through SHO, Central crime station, Team-V, Hyderabad,T.S.

¶15

M/S. Future Capital Holdings Pvt. ltd,,^(Known as Capital first ltd) Rep. by Hanoor ali merchant, S/o.Ameer ali marchent, Aged about 35^years, Occ: Regional manager, Rl/o.Door no.6-3-927 , First floor,. Shobhan buildings, Rajabhavan road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad,

¶16

...RESPONDENT

¶17

l.A. NO: 1OF 2015 CRL R^CMP NO: 3159 OF²⁰¹⁵

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be} pleased to suspend the Order in Crl.M.P.No. 3962 of 2014 in C.C.No.179 of 2014 on the file of the Hon'ble Xll Additional^{Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,} Hyderabad,^pending disposal of the criminal^{revision case.}

¶19

I I I

¶20

CRLRC.No. 2021 o' 2015

¶21

Criminal Revisio r Case filed under Sections 397 & 40'l of 3r P.()., against the Orders dated 22.0( .2015 passed in Cd.M.P.No. 3963 cf 2012. ir C.C.No. 179 of 2O14 on the file of tt e Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan N,4agistrat-., Hycerabad.

¶22

Between:

¶23

Gopi Kodam lgalla,, S/o. Parthasaradhi, Age: 56^years, O:c: Govt. Service R/o. H.no.1-(r3'l2lNB, Flal no.5, Vijayaprathap Atrartmert:,, Atchyuthareddy tt/arg, Vidyan agar, Hyderabad.

¶24

...PETITIONER

¶25

AND

¶26

'1. The State of telangana,, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad through SHO Central crime station, Team-V, Hyderabad,--.S.

¶27

RESPONDENT

¶28

M/S. Future^(:apital Holdings pvt.ltd,, (Known as Capital first ltd) Rep.By Hanoor ali mr rrchent,S/o.Ameer ali marchent, Aged about 35 ye;rrs, Occ Regional mar ager, R:/o.Door no.6-3-927, First floor, Shobtrarr buildings, Rajabhavan r:ad, Somajiguda, Hyderabad

¶29

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTI), CCIMPLAINANT

¶30

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015( C]TLRCMP. NO: 3165 OF 2015)

¶31

Petition under Sections 397 & 40.1 of Cr.P.C pr.ry ng that in the circumstances stat;d in the affidavit filed in support cf the petition, the High Court may be plez sed to suspend the order in Crl.trl.P.No. :1963 of 2014 in C.C.No. 179 of 2( 14 in the file of Hon'ble Xll Addirional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderal)ad pending disposal of the Criminal Revisior Case.

¶32

CRLRC.No. 2022 o1 2015

¶33

Criminal Revisiorr Case filed under Sections 397 & 4()1 of^()r.P.C., against the Orders dated 22.OG 2015 passed in Cd.M.P.No. 3961 o' 2014 in C.C.No. 179 of 2O14 on the file of th-. Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Ma,listrak), llyd:rabad.

¶34

Between:

¶35

Radha Padmrrja,, Wo. Gopi Kodamagalla, Age: 4ti years,^()cc Govt.Service R/o.H.no.1-9I 12lA,/B,Flat no.5, Vijayaprathap Apilrtments, Atchyuthareddy lr,4arg, Vidyani rgar, Hyderabad

¶36

...PETITIONER

¶37

AND

¶38

1 The State of l elangana,, Rep. by Public Prosecutor. High^(lourt;rt Hyderabad through SHO, Central crime station, Team-V, Hyder:rbad,T. -s.. Rt:SpONDENT

¶39

M/S.Future Capital Holdings pvt. Ltd,, (Known as Capital first ltd) Rep.By Hanoor all marchent,S/o.Ameer all marchent, Aged about 35 years, Occ Regional manger, R/o.Door no.6-3-927, First floor, Shobhan buildings, Rajabhavan road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad

¶40

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO - GOMPLAINANT

¶41

l.A. NO: 1OF 20 1 s( CRLRCMP. NO: 3166 OF 2015)

¶42

Petition under Section 482 R/w 457 of Cr.P-C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order in Crl.lvl.P.No. 396'l of 2014 in C.C.No. 179 ol 2014 in the file of Hon'ble Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case.

¶43

Counsel for the Petitioner (in all Cases) : Sri VANKANI MALLESHAM

¶44

Counsel for Respondent No.1 (in all Cases) : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶45

Counsel for Respondent No.2 (in all Cases) : Sri N. NAVEEN KUMAR

¶46

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶47

THE HON,BI E SRI JUSTICI, NA]VIAVATTAPU RAJ]'SHUIAR RAO CRII4LI\ AL REVISIqI! C- SlE xqs 2()17t)F 2Cr15. zo21 0F 2015 AND 2022 0F 2lJL3

¶48

COMMON OR,)I}R:

¶49

All ttiese Crinrinai Rt'vision Cases a:e being Cisposed of by u'ay ol thir common orcler as the issue raisecl irr all these petitions is onr: and the same.

¶50

) Crimina-l Revision Casc No's.2Oi7 of 2015, 20il I of 2015 and 2022 of 2(⁾ 1 5 are directed against the orders dt.22.06.2015 passcd inCrl.lv.P No's. 3961 of 2014, 3692 of 20 1 arrd 3693 of 2014 rcspectively in C.C No.l79 of 2014 ot'r the l'ile of the XII Additional Chi:f Metropolitan Magistrate, Ilycler abad, wherein and whereby tlLc learned Magistrate dismisst'd tht: iretitions filed by tl-re rcvision petitioner uncle r scctions 451 r l'*^,:-57 of Cr.P.C for the of prope rty.

¶51

3 The dr -facto complainant in the ti.C^,s a company registered under thc Companies Act, 19i;6, deriiing in the business in le rding loans against gold alrl that being such, lodged a compl {nt rvith the police against some customers and the employecs of the Company allcging tha.t fraud was committed to oause illegal loss to the Corrpan-,,. Ulton such complaint, an FIR was registerecl vide FIRNo. 151 ,rf 2012 by the

¶52

2 RRN,J COMMON ORDER IN cRL.R.c NOS.2017 ,202r & 2022 0F 2015

¶53

Police, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. During the investigation, based on the information provided by the accused, the police have seized various gold articles which were fraudulently and illega1ly taken away by the accused and seized articles were produced before the Trial Court.

¶54

4 While the investigation was pending, the de-facto complainant and a few others have filed criminal miscellaneous petitions before the Trial Court seeking custody of the seized gold articles. The Trial Court vide common order dt. 17.4.2013, dismissed the petitions with an observation that the owner of the property cannot be ascertained untii and unless a fullfledged trial is completed.

¶55

5 On completion of the investigation and filing of the chargesheet, the revision petitioners have filed criminal miscellaneous petitions before the^'lrial Court vide Cr1.M.P No.'s 3961 of 20L4, 3692 of 2Ol4 and 3693 of 2Ol4 stating that they are the owners of seized Gold ald the same is to be returned to them. The de-facto complainant resisted the same by filing counter and upon adjudication of the matter, the Tria-l Court was pleased to dismiss all three criminal miscellareous^petitions vide separate orders dt.22.06.2015 with an observation that no

¶56

¶57

3 RRN,] C()MI.,4ON ORDER IN cRL.R.C NOS.2017 , Za\ I 2022 Qt 2075

¶58

document was placed before the Trial Court in srrplrort of the proof of owne'ship of the petitioners on the gold articies and also that unle ;s a full-fledged trial is conchrded, t re orvnership of seized prop( rty cannot be decided. Aggrit'ved i>1 such orders, the revision pe[itioners approached this Cou-t.

¶59

Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioners and learned Counr;el for the respondents. Peruseci the: material available on re :ord.

¶60

It has been contended by the revision p,el.itioners that the learned Magistrateerroneously dismissed the crimina,l miscellaneous oetitions by not giving the inlerim crrstody of the gold to them rn,tthout appreciating the fact tt,at the investigation reveals that th e names of the petitioners r:flect i n tl-re record bearing the lor.n number, the weight of the golc unc. the loan amount sanct oned, r.l,hich proves that they I'r ave actually pledged the 5 old articles and the same bel,rr: g to them. Accordingly, prryed to allow the revisions.

¶61

8 On a ciireful perusal of the entire record, it is observed that various p( rsons including the rei,ision petitioner; and the de-facto complirinant are claiming the right and <.,wr ership of the seized prt^,perty. The basis of such a cl ai m shall be

¶62

¶63

) )

¶64

4 R R N,.J COMMON ORDER IN cRL. R.C NC5.2017 , 2021 & 2022 0F 201,5

¶65

supported by showing bona fides. This Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court was right in passing the impugned orders as unless ald until a full-fledged trial was not conducted, the inner truth cannot be unearthed. At the time of the hearing, both palties have brought to the notice of this Court that the calendar case before the Trial Cor.rrt vide judgment dt.O5.O3.2O2O ended in the conviction of accused No.1 to 6. However, the Trial Court observed that due to the pendency of petitions beforc this Court, the orders as to the ownership and return of seized property could not be passed. Now that the calendar case before the Trial Court is disposed of, it u,ould be just and proper that the Trial Court itself determines the issue as to the ownership of the seized property and to whose custody it shall fall.

¶66

In light of the above observations, all these revision cases are being disposed of directing the revision petitioners to approach the appropriate Court of law and pursue their remedies in accordance with iaw. No order as to costs.

¶67

L\1

¶68

To,

¶69

Miscellaneous petitions, if a:ry pending, shall stand closed.

¶70

Sd/- K. SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// qp SECTION OFFICER

¶71

The Xll Additional chief Metroporrtan Magistrate, Hyderabad. (with records) 2 The station House officer, centrar crime Station porice station, Hyderabad.

¶72

¶73

3 One CC to Sr VANKANI MALLESHAM, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri N. NAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to th,r Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Stete of felangana at Hyderabad. (CUT)

¶74

Two CD Copics N.ib b.t

HIGH COUF T

DATED:21 l(712023

COMMON ORDER

CRLRC.Nos 2017 of 2015, 2021 of 201Ii& 2022 of 2015

¶83

..: .i'iA I.- 0r.'
)
rJ s'| $$N[
,,/,, ,
+

¶84

DISPOSING OF ALL THE REVISION CASES

¶85

WITHOUT COS'I'S

¶86

eo.("U
Lo
oL

Radha Padmaja, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha Padmaja, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Limbadri swamy s/o. Gangaram, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

P.Ramesh Vs Sreenidhi Institute of Science and Technology

A. Suryanarayana, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary to Government

Sudati Surender Rao , Sudhakar Rao, Warangal Dist Vs Chinthala Narahari, Warangal City and Dist and Anr.

B.Prabhakar, Hyderabad., Vs Ch.Subba Rao, Hyd and Anr, Rep Pp.

The Apsrtc and Another Vs Kethavath Ramu