Telangana High Court
K.Nirmala Guptha, A3 vs The State Of A.P., on 19 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5184 of 2009
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused No.3 aggrieved by the
order, dated 21.11.2003, in Crl.M.P. No.1405 of 2003 in
C.C. No.2 of 2000 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, Hyderabad.
2. Heard Mr. C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-
State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
residential property of the petitioner bearing municipal
No.8-3-230/B 45-46, Venkatgiri, Yousufguda admeasuring
600 square yards was attached pursuant to the order
passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.1405 of 2003 in C.C.
No.3 of 2003. The trial Court after full-fledged trial
acquitted the petitioner/accused No.3 for the offences under
Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and Section 5 of the Andhra
Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial
Establishments Act on 19.02.2008. Subsequently, the
petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 180 of 2009 seeking to raise
attachment in respect of the above said property on the
ground of acquittal. However, the trial Court dismissed the
application through its impugned order dated 16.03.2009
on the sole ground that the prosecution filed Criminal
Appeal No.1550 of 2009 aggrieved by the judgment passed
by the trial Court, dated 19.02.2008, and the said Criminal
Appeal is pending. Learned counsel further submitted that
mere pendency of the Criminal Appeal is not a ground to
dismiss the application and the impugned order passed by
the trial Court is liable to be set aside.
4. After perusal of the averments made by respondent
No.2 in Crl.P.M.P.No.15473 of 2011, it reveals that the
petitioner executed registered Agreement of Sale-cum-
irrevocable General Power of Attorney bearing document
Nos.2221 of 1997 and 2022 of 1997, dated 25.06.1997 in
favour of M/s. A.S. Leasing and Finance Limited and the
possession was also delivered. Subsequently, Sale Deed
bearing document Nos.4516 and 4517 of 2003 have been
executed in favour of respondent No.2 and the petitioner is
not the owner of the said property.
5. This Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.1550 of
2009 and confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court
today i.e. 19.11.2025.
6. Having considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the
material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner is
accused No.3 in C.C. 3 of 2003. It is not in dispute that the
property of the petitioner was attached pursuant to the
order passed by the trial Court vide order dated 21.11.2003
in Crl.M.P.No.1405 of 2003. The petitioner was acquitted
pursuant to the judgment, dated 19.02.2008, passed by the
trial Court in C.C. No.3 of 2003. Aggrieved by the above
said judgment, the State filed Criminal Appeal No.1550 of
2009. This Court after hearing the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State and
the learned counsel for accused persons dismissed the
Criminal Appeal No.1550 of 2009 and confirmed the
judgment passed by the trial Court.
7. In the case on hand, the trial Court dismissed the
application filed by the petitioner for raising attachment on
16.03.2009 only on the ground that the State filed the
Appeal aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial Court
in C.C.No.3 of 2003 and due to the pendency of the
Criminal Appeal, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief
sought in this petition. It is relevant to mention that this
Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.1550 of 2009 filed
by the State on 19.11.2025 and confirmed the Judgment of
the trial Court dated 19.02.2008.
8. By virtue of the judgment, dated 19.11.2025, in
Criminal Appeal No.1550 of 2009, the impugned order
passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.180 of 2009 is liable
to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The
petitioner/accused No.3 and respondent No.2 are granted
liberty to file appropriate application before the trial Court
and the trial Court is directed to consider the same in
accordance with law.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if
any, pending in this petition stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
Date: 19.11.2025
Note: Issue C.C. in two weeks.
pgp
