Telangana High Court
Telangana State Road Transport ... vs The State Of Telangana, on 23 November, 2022
Bench: B.Vijaysen Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.9607 of 2018
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the
respondents No.2 to 4 in not taking back the original registered
GPA dated 17.04.1993 bearing document No.2617 of 1993 from the
XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for
returning to the petitioner society as being illegal, arbitrary and
unconstitutional.
2. The case of the petitioner society is that one D. Venkataiah,
an employee of the then APSRTC, has availed loan to a tune of
Rs.1,53,000/- in the month of January 1999 and offered his original
title deeds and a registered GPA bearing document No.2617 of
1993 dated 17.04.1993 entered into between one K. Kameshwari
and K. Suryanarayana Miya towards collateral security to them.
The executant of the above document lodged a complaint before
the Begum Bazar Police Station against K. Suryanarayana Miya,
Boda Ashok and D. Venkataiah alleging that K. Suryanarayana Miya
had created forged GPA and in connivance with the other accused,
created further registered documents. A case in FIR.No.44 of 2010
was registered on 26.02.2010 for the offences under Sections 420,
423, 464, 468, 471 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet
in CC.No.501 of 2012 on the file of the XVII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, the accused were tried and the
said case ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 18.06.2015.
3. It is stated that during the course of investigation,
the Station House Officer, Begum Bazar Police Station, came to the
petitioner society and seized the original registered GPA dated
17.04.1993 from the custody of the petitioner society and filed in
CC.No.501 of 2012. The Accused No.3 in the above case i.e.
D. Venkataiah, who availed the loan from the petitioner society, has
repaid the entire loan amount and demanded the petitioner society
to return the original documents pledged to the society. However,
as the documents were in the custody of police and later deposited
in CC.No.501 of 2012, the petitioner society was not unable to
return the original documents of the loanee viz. D. Venkataiah.
It is further stated that due pressure exerted by D. Venkataiah,
the petitioner society made several representations to the
respondent No.4 to take steps to return the original GPA to the
petitioner society. As there was no response, the instant writ
petition is filed.
4. In the written instructions, received by the learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Home, it is submitted that the document
dated 17.04.1993 was deposited in CC.No.501 of 2012 pending
before the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad
and the document was marked as Ex.P2 during the course of trial.
It is further submitted that it is always open to the petitioner
society to make a requisition before the trial Court for release of the
document by filing an application under Section 451 of the Criminal
Procedure Code.
5. It is not in dispute that the investigation officer has seized
the subject document during the course of investigation in Cr.No.44
of 2010. Later, charge sheet was filed in CC.No.501 of 2012 before
the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and
the document, which was seized, was marked as Ex.P2 in the
evidence. As the petitioner society claims to be the custodian of the
document, from whom the investigation officer has seized the
document, the petitioner society or the owner of the
document/loanee should have approached the Court under Section
451 Cr.P.C. for release of the document. However, as CC.No.501 of
2012 was disposed of by judgment dated 18.06.2015, the petitioner
society is given liberty to file an application under Section 451
Cr.P.C. before the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad, for release of the document bearing No.2617 of 1993.
On such application, being filed, the XVII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, shall pass orders within a
period of two (2) weeks thereafter.
The writ petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous
petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
____________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
November 23, 2022
DSK
