Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Jameela Shaik vs State Of Ap on 8 August, 2024
APHC010354282019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1139/2019
Between:
Jameela Shaik ...PETITIONER
AND
State Of AP and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. GIRI BABU MARTHI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2. C PRAKASH REDDY
The Court made the following:
2
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.1139 of 2019
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1139 OF 2019
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and
401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) questions the
correctness of docket order dated 16.09.2019 of learned II
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in
C.F.No.10161 of 2019.
2. Smt. Kulsoom Bi and Smt. Jameela Shaik are stated to be
real sisters. Smt. Kulsoom Bi filed O.S.No.860 of 2018 against
her sister Smt. Jameela Shaik before the learned VII Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. She claimed that the immovable
property is owned by her and was under her use and occupation
and out of affection her sister was permitted to stay on the first
floor of the building gratuitously and as a licensee. Thereafter,
despite the demands to vacate the premises and take away her
movable properties, she failed to oblige and therefore, the suit
was filed for a direction to the defendant to vacate and deliver
vacant possession of the plaint schedule property within a period
of two months. The defendant in the suit did not put up contest.
Dr. VRKS, J
After due hearing, the learned trial Court by judgment dated
18.03.2019 allowed the suit directing a decree to be drawn up for
delivery of vacant possession of the property.
3. The judgment debtor did not comply with the said order. In
such circumstances, the decree holder filed E.P.No.67 of 2019.
After requisite enquiry, the executing Court issued a warrant for
delivery. A Field Assistant of the Court acting upon the warrant
instructions and in the presence of police, effected delivery of the
immovable property. This execution was done in the presence of
mediators also. As per the proceedings of the Field Assistant,
judgment debtor and her family members were present when this
execution was done. When they were asked to remove their
movables, they refused and created galata. As the judgment
debtor refused to remove the articles, the Field Assistant in the
presence of police and panch witnesses prepared an inventory
and seized the articles and kept them in the custody of decree
holder on 01.07.2019.
4. Thereafter, judgment debtor approached the executing
Court and filed E.A.No.56 of 2019 in E.P.No.67 of 2019 in
O.S.No.860 of 2018 seeking redelivery of her movables. After
Dr. VRKS, J
due hearing, the learned executing Court granted redelivery.
Accordingly, on 06.07.2019 a detailed list of articles was handed
over to the judgment debtor and proceedings were prepared by
the Field Assistant. Judgment debtor signed the proceedings and
received the articles. There are altogether item Nos.1 to 45
totalling worth Rs.1,05,950/-. In these papers she has specifically
mentioned that she had verified the inventory of articles that was
made and having found that everything tallied with and was
intact, she received them. Thus, by 06.07.2019 those aspects
stood concluded.
5. Subsequent thereto, judgment debtor filed a complaint
under Sections 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. on 16.07.2019 before the
learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.
As per the list of documents mentioned in this complaint, there
are two documents. Serial No.1 is photostat copy of a complaint
given by judgment debtor/complainant to police at Krishna Lanka.
Serial No.2 is photostat copy of delivery report of the Field
Assistant in E.P.No.67 of 2019. This complaint was filed against
two individuals. The first one is the decree holder. The second
one is the husband of the decree holder. They are shown as
Dr. VRKS, J
accused in the complaint. In the complaint Sections 378 and 379
I.P.C. are mentioned. The essence of the allegation of the
complaint is that the Field Assistant was not expected to keep the
seized articles in the custody of decree holder. He ought to have
kept them in the custody of respectable mediators. It is then
stated that she had now verified and found missing of gold
ornaments worth Rs.1,00,000/-, valuable watches and cash worth
Rs.46,000/- and valuable documents that were kept in the trunk
box. It is alleged that they were taken away by the decree holder.
To complain about it, the complainant went to police station and
they refused to entertain the same stating that it was a matter civil
in nature. Therefore, the said complaint was filed.
6. The learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
raised certain objections and finally on 16.09.2019, after hearing
the learned counsel and after perusing the record, it found that
there was no case to be prosecuted and refused to entertain the
complaint.
7. Aggrieved by that order, the complainant/judgment debtor
preferred this revision.
Dr. VRKS, J
8. Sri M.Giri Babu, the learned counsel for revision petitioner
strongly contends that:
The complaint disclosed cognizable offence and the Court
below erred in not acting upon it. It could have either
forwarded the case to the police or it could have inquired
into and proceeded further and it failed to do so. In this
regard, the learned counsel cited Seema Devi v. State of
U.P.1 wherein all the principles concerning taking
cognizance and entertaining complaint have been
mentioned.
Since the executing Court completed the task of execution
of the decree and delivered the immovable property and
recorded the delivery, there was no possibility for the
complainant/judgment debtor to move any application
before the executing Court.
The husband of decree holder also participated in the
process and committed the offences.
AIRONLINE 2018 ALL 4316
Dr. VRKS, J
It is for these reasons; the learned counsel seeks to set aside the
order of the Court below and pass necessary directions.
9. As against it, Sri Vijaya Adithya, the learned counsel
representing Sri C.Prakash Reddy, the learned counsel for
respondent No.2/decree holder and respondent No.3, who is the
husband of the decree holder, submits that in a duly constituted
proceedings, Civil Court and its officers acted in accordance with
law. The judgment debtor having no rights over the property has
been prosecuting unnecessary litigation and creating these
problems. That on 06.07.2019 she had completely verified the
inventory and obtained all the articles intact and in writing
acknowledged them. Having done that, she is estopped from
complaining anything. It is also argued that instead of making
any applications before the Civil Court, with a view to harass the
parties, these criminal proceedings are put to process by the
judgment debtor and the order of the Court below is right in
accordance with law and facts and does not require any
interference.
Dr. VRKS, J
10. Having considered the material on record and the rival
submissions and the ruling cited, the following aspects are to be
stated:
All that were seized were enlisted and appropriate
proceedings were drawn up by the Field Assistant and that was
signed by two independent panch witnesses and the decree
holder. All that was done in the presence of police. One among
the items therein is her trunk box containing clothes and samans.
That is item No.7 in the list prepared on 01.07.2019. Redelivery
and the list signed by revision petitioner on 06.07.2019 shows
that item No.7 as trunk box with clothes and samans. She stated
that everything was intact and they tallied and she obtained
delivery of it.
11. As per the complaint, gold articles worth Rs.1,00,000/-,
imported valuable watches and cash worth Rs.46,000/- were kept
in the trunk box and they were missing. Along with the complaint
documents indicating ownership of such watches and gold
articles are not attached. Description of gold articles and the
number of gold articles and the names and companies of the
stated imported watches are also completely missing. The exact
Dr. VRKS, J
amount of cash that was kept is also missing. Thus, all those
basic details that are required and basic documents that are
required to prima facie show ownership of any of them are not
available from the complaint. There is no mention as to why on
noticing missing of such valuables, the matter was not taken up
before the executing Court. The submission of the learned
counsel is that proceedings in execution were closed and
therefore, they did not approach the Civil Court. It seems such
submission has no legal basis. One may notice Order XXI Rules
43 and 43A C.P.C. in this regard. The failure of the Field
Assistant in not keeping the seized articles in the custody of the
third party is also a matter to be complained to the Civil Court. A
reading of the complaint and the context of facts among which it
had arisen makes it apparently clear that this is an effort to arm-
twist the decree holder. It was on a complete comprehension of
the facts and circumstances, the learned trial Court refused to
entertain the complaint. A Criminal Court is entitled to consider
the material on record and only when it finds that the facts
constitute an offence, it can take cognizance and can summon
any individual. From the facts on record, one would not see any
dishonest removal of property by the decree holder or her
Dr. VRKS, J
husband. What took place through legal process is sought to be
questioned without any basis in it. Making a mere allegation in a
complaint without showing any basis does not warrant initiation of
prosecution. The learned Court below appropriately refused to
act upon such complaint of the revision petitioner. In these
circumstances, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal or
improper. Therefore, no interference is needed.
12. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The
docket order dated 16.09.2019 of learned II Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in C.F.No.10161 of 2019
stands confirmed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 08.08.2024
Ivd
Dr. VRKS, J
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1139 OF 2019
Date: 08.08.2024
Ivd
