M/S. Manapuram Finance Limited vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 1352 Tel

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

        WRIT PETITION No. 14153 of 2022

O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the

4th respondent in issuing notice under Section 102 of Cr.P.C

to freeze the account transaction of the accused in Crime

No.97 of 2022 in order to seize gold ornaments pledged to the

petitioner company.

2. Sri Ravinder Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel

representing Sri J. Srikanth, Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the person who has given the

complaint is not owner of the goods and basing on such

complaint, registration of complaint itself is bad. He submits

that petitioner is not the accused and those gold ornaments

are pledged with petitioner and it valued approximately at

Rs.4.33Crores. He submits that petitioner is ready to provide

the bank guarantee for the said amount, as such there may

be a direction to the respondents not to seize the gold

ornaments. He submits that investigation is at initial stage

and whether the ornaments that are pledged are stolen

articles or not are yet to be investigated and will be decided

after a full-fledged trial. He submits that the 4th respondent

issued notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C, wherein it stated W.P.No.14153 of 2022

that the pledged gold ornaments are stolen articles and liable

to be seized. He submits that the business being conducted

by the petitioner has got number of competitors and the

complainant is one of such competitor. He submits that the

petitioner is doing the business after obtaining licenses from

RBI and other statutory authorities. He is ready to provide

the bank guarantee and after a full-fledged trial, if the Court

below holds that the said property is the stolen property, the

same can be seized.

3. Learned senior counsel relied on the Judgment of this

Court in "Makkena Subba Naidu v. State of A.P and

others" [2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 624 (AP)].

7. In his order, inter alia, the learned magistrate was of the view that in view of the recitals in Ex. D-l, the amount belonged to the revision petitioner herein and the said amount was paid at the house of the revision petitioner to the accused; and that the revision petitioner was able to give denominations of the cash paid by him to the accused whereas the wife of the accused failed to give at least denominations of the cash seized by the police; and that, therefore, her claim was only at the instance of her husband-accused. I see no plausible grounds given by the learned Sessions Judge so as to upset the said finding. Anyway, the property disposal order passed under Section 452 of the Code is not a final order inasmuch as it is not within the realm of the Criminal Court to decide the rights of the parties. At that stage, the criminal Court is mainly concerned with right to possession of the property but not right over the W.P.No.14153 of 2022

property. The rights over the property can only be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court having jurisdiction over the same. It is always open to the parties to assail the said order in a competent civil court or file a suit to claim the right over the property. Therefore, always and in all circumstances while directing the property to be given possession of to a particular person, it shall be the endeavour of the criminal Court to observe that such a right is subject to the result of the decision of a competent Civil Court having jurisdiction over the matter. Any attempt in that view of the matter to decide the rights over the properties marked in a criminal case is, therefore, without jurisdiction and competence of the criminal Court.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits

that when the crime is at investigation stage and when an

application is filed and a notice is issued under Section 102 of

Cr.P.C, the petitioner cannot have any audience before this court

and this application before this Court is not at all maintainable.

He submits that when once a property is seized and the same is

placed before the Court below, petitioner will get an opportunity

to file an application seeking interim custody of the property and

he submits that the petitioner cannot maintain an application

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel appearing for complainant submits that

gold that was stolen from the complainant was deposited in the W.P.No.14153 of 2022

petitioner's company and there are almost 41 accused arrayed in

crime No.97 of 2022 and so far only five accused were arrested.

He submits that writ petition itself is not maintainable and

petitioner cannot come before this court questioning the notice

issued under Section 102 of Cr.P.C.

6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side perused

the entire material on record, the petitioner is before this court

questioning the notice issued under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. This

Court in W.P.No.13363 of 2020 in AP Product Represented by it's

Proprietor v. State of Telangana has observed that in case of

seizure of property and freezing of bank accounts at the stage of

investigation, accused have no right of being heard and of

affording prior opportunity before property is seized. When a

notice is issued under Section 102 of Cr.P.C, the same is not

amenable to the writ jurisdiction and further, the order in

Makkena Subba Naidu's case which is relied on by the learned

senior counsel has no application to the facts of the case. The

said order came to be passed in a criminal revision case where

the issue that fell for consideration before the court was about

the disposal of the case property. Whether an order is an

appealable order or a revisable order, petitioner cannot take W.P.No.14153 of 2022

shelter under said order. This Court is not able to appreciate how

a mandamus lies before this court when an officer as per the

powers vested in him and in accordance with law has issued a

notice under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. Except submitting that they

are ready to furnish security for the property which is going to be

seized, there are no other legal and tenable grounds urged before

this Court. In view of the above discussions and as the

alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, this Court finds

no reason to entertain the writ petition.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to

costs.

8. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 22nd March 2022 gvl/pld