The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad.

2. The Station House Officer, Boinpalli Police Station, Rajanna Sircilla District. ...RespondenUComplainants Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the Hlgh Court may be pleased to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.90 of 2025 in Crime No.214 of 2024 on the file of Junior Civil J udge-cum-Jud icial Magistrate of First Class at Vemulawada d1.22-01-2025 and quash the same. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to release the Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos.TS 23 4809 and TS 23 4810 seized in connection with Crime No.214 ot 2024'on the file of Boinpalli Police Station, Rajanna Sircilta District in favour of the petitioner and pass This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Y. Bala Murali, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri E. Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents. The Court made the following: ORDER 7 ') THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.43OO of 2o25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is liled praying this Court to quash the docket order dated 22.01.2025 passed in Crl.MP.No.9O of 2025 in Crime No.2l4 of 2024 on the frle of the Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Vemulawada, and to direct to release the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.TS23 4809 and TS23 4810 respectively.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 06. 12.2024 the tractor and traiier of petitioner (bearing numbers TS2348O9 and TS234810) were seized by the 2"a respondent - police. The said seizure occurred when the driver, namely, Mahesh, was transporting sand without a transit pasd, and allegedly without the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner had hired Mahesh for agricultural purposes, and that he had apparently deviated from the agreed-upon use of the vehicle. Following the seizure, a case uide Crirne No. 214 of 2024 was registered against the petitioner. However, it is averred that despite best efforts of petitioner to explain the situation to the authorities z SKS.J Crl.P.No-4300 of 2025 and request for release of the vehicles, the 2"d respondent - police refused to release the same. That being so, the petitioner frled Crl.MP.No.9O of 2025 in Crime No.214 of 2024 under Section 497 of BNSS for release of the said vehicles and on 22.01 .2025 the trial Court passed docket order observing that the petitioner admitted that the said vehicles were purchased by him from one Jinka Swamy for agriculture purpose and on perusal of RCs' of the said vehicles, it was noted that the vehicles stand in the name of the said Jinka Swamy who is not made as party to the petition. With the said observation, the trial Court held that it is not inclined to allow the said petition. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is hled.

3. Heard Sri Y.Bala Murli, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri 4.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing foi respondents.

4. karned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the seizure of the vehicles of petitioner was due to the alleged unauthorized transportalion of sand without a valid permit, and for the same, the petitioner is willing to pay the penalty as 3 SKS,J Crl.P No.4300 of 2O25 prescribed under the relevant rules framed uide G.O.Ms.No. 15 dated 19.O2.2015. He averred that the said Rules provide for a specific penalty for vehicles found transporting sand without authorization, and the petitioner has offered to pay the same, but despite same, the 2.d respondent refused to release the vehicles without providing valid reasons. He asserted that the seized tractor and trailer are the sole source of incomc of petitioner, and the continued detention of the said vehicles will cause signihcant hnancial hardship and irreparable loss to the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed this Court to quash the docket order dated 22.01.2025 passed in Crl.MP.No.9O of 2025 in Crime No.214 of 2024 and to allow this criminal petition.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and contended that as the petitioner was managing the said vehicles, he was made accused in the said crime, whereas, for the purpose of release of vehicles, the registered owner has to file a petition and as the petitioner is not the registered owner of the seized vehicles and has not even made the registered owner as party to the petition, the trial Y-li 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.43OO of 2O25 Court rightly passed the impugned order dated 22.01.2O25 and that there are no irregularities or illegalities in the said order. Therefore, he prayed this Court to disiniss this criminal petition stating that there are no merits in the same.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made, and on perusing the material placed on record, it is noted that admittedly, the petitioner is not the registered owner of the seized vehicles and that one Jinka Swmay is the registered owner of the seized vehicles who is not made as part5r to the petition hled before the trial Court. As such, this Court is of the Iirm view that the trial Court has rightly observed that the petitioner cannot be allowed as the registered owner of the seized vehicles is not made as parfy to the petition. However, though learned counsel for petitioner filed the copies of registration certificates of the seized vehicles, it is clearly seen that the same are registered in the name of one Swamy Kumar Jinka. Therefore, it is observed that there are no illegalities in the impugned docket order dated 22.01 .2C25 passed in Crl.MP.No.9O of 2025 in Crime No.214 of 2024. 5 SKS,J Crl.P. No.4300 of 2O25 7 . In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, this Criminal Petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to file a fresh petition before the trial Court by impleading the registered owner in the petition. On filing of such petition, the trial Court is directed to consider the said pelition and dispose of the same, in accordance with law. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI FFICER 'fu. To, l.TheJuniorCivilJudge.cum.JudicialMagistrateofFirstClassat Vemulawada

2. The station House Officer, Boinpalli Police station, Rajanna sircilla.District. 5. r*o ccs to the public prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Y. Bala Murali, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies kam/PSL \ , 6r TEi 'v .s c-! !, + .i. , HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 !5 ORDER CRLP.No.4300 ot 2025 C) i, db\$' \:,::, ,il:i;,i.1 + S: {. DISPOSING OF THE CRLP