Papasani Giridhar Reddy v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased toto QUASH the order dt.05.0'1 .2022 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.93 of 2021 in Crime No.1 7 of 2020 on the file of WCO, Team-lX, CCS, DD, Hyderabad; This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B VAMSHIDHAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and Sri Md. Afzal Khan, Advocate for the Respondent No.2; The Court made the following: ORDER THE {ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAI. CFTIMINAL PETITION No.7873 OF 2023 ORDER: '1 This criminat petition, under Section 487 Cr.P.C is fited seeking to quash the order dated 05.01.2027 p;rssed IN Crt.M.P.No.93 of 2021 in Crime No.17 of 2020 of WCf, [eam-lX, CCS, DD, Hyderabad pending on the file of the :-ourt of Metropotitan Ser;sions Judge, Hyderabad. 2 The facts in brief are that a case in Cr.No.17 cf .l-070 was registered agairst two persons on the file of WCO Te;rm-lX, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, for the offences punishabte under Seclions 406 and 420 of IPC and Section 5 of Tetangana Protection of Depositors of Fi rancial Establishments Act, 1999 Act. lt is to be seen that on the report of the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, in Letter No.HGP/Leg/Leg?/0055t'2020 dated

15.6.7020, the Government of Telangana issued G.O.Rt.No.906 dated 25.8.2020 i:;sued ad-interim order under Sections 3 & 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of l''inancial Estabtishments Acr, 1999 for the attachment of mnovable properties of one Altampatty rajesh @ Raju (A.1) and his wife 2 Smt. Altampattly Uma Devi (A.2) in Cr.No.17l207O of CCS, DD, Hyderabad. lt is to be further seen that the issue invotved in this case pertains to ltem No.4 of the schedute which is an open plot No.40,5y.No.265l1 admeasuring 100 Sq.Yards situated at Budwel, Rajender Nagar, which was attached as per the above G.O.Rt.No.906 Home (Passports) Department, dated 25.08.2020. 3 Be that as it may, the petitioner herein who is a third party fited Crt.M.P.No.93 of 7071 in the subject crime contending that he purchased the subject property from A.1 in the year 2018 whereas the crime was registered against the accused in the year

2020. Hence the interim attachment of the subject property under the G.O.Rt.No.906 of 75.8.2020 was bad and sought for raising the attachment in respect of the subject property. 4 The [earned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, vide impugned order dated 05.01.2022 dismissed the petition observing that the subject property was specificalty mentioned in the annexure to the G.O. Hence the present criminal petition. 5 The predominant contention of Sri B.Vamsidhar Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner purchased the property from the accused in the year 2018 and r., / - 3 the comptaint ,Mas todged in the year 2070, hence, tre order suffers de-jure Moreover, the petitioner is unawilrt,'of the disputes betw,:e,rr the accused and the compta,inant-2nd respondent and hence the petitioner cannot be put to st,fferance as he is a bora fide purchaser. He further conten,Jed that issuance of the G.0 and its consequential Memo dated Cr3.9.2020 was without issuing, any notice to the petitioner or withc,ut giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. llence the G.O.Rt.No.906 i; liabte to be set aside. 6 On the ol.her hand, Sri E.Ganesh, the learnerl ,Assistant Pubtic Prosecutcr and Sri Mohammed Afzat Khan, tre [earned counsel for the 'second respondent contended that the court betow has passeC the impugned order keeping in view thl: factual scenario behind the registration of the crime. l-lence the impugned order does not suffer from any ittegatity or rrr:gularity and hence the present criminal petition may be dismisse<1. 7 The factuetl episode which ted to registration of the crime was that the acr:used in the subject crime had suffered losses in rice business in the year 2017 and thus the accused st:arted chit business atonq r,r,ith his wife / A.2, lured the innocent subscribes I 4 and have committed defautt in paying back their amounts. With an intention to fite an insotvency petition, the accused transferred immovable properties standing in their name in favour of his kith and kin and after disposat of the properties the accused fited l.p before the competent Court to avoid attachment of properties. 8 ln the instant case, there is no mentio n / proof that the accused have purchased the subject property with the amounts they coltected from the chit subscribers or depositors. As seen from the record, the property attached was purchased by the accused No.'l in the year ZO11 i.e. much before the accused starting the chit business having purchased the same through registered sale deed bearing document No.330 of 2011 dated

27.01.2011 registered on the file of SRO; Rajendranagar from one M. Mahesh Kurnar. The petitioner purchased the property from A. 1 bona fidely in the year 2018, by virtue of sale deed bearing document No.12953 of 201g dated 29.1 1.ZO1g and the crime was registered in the year 2020 i.e. after more than one year. When the petitioner has become a bona fide purchaser of the property and he was in possession of the property, certainty an 5 opportunity of hearing must have been given to thi: petitioner before orderinq attachment as he was unaware of the disputes. Simpty presumirgi that in order to spite the prcrp<,,rty from attachment in an insolvency petition that may be filed in future the accused have sotd the property is not acceptabtr:. More so, the petitioner lrerein is no way retated to the accused i;r the said cnme. He is ;: lhird party. Therefore, the finding of the court betow that the subject property was mentioned at sc,rial No.4 and hence atta(:hment cannot be waived is also not prof)er- 9 Having re3ard to the facts and circumstances o1 the case, I am of the con';rdered view that without giving any reasonabte opportunity to the petitioner before passing a,l-interim attachment of tre property under the impugned G.(). is not proper and hen:e, the G.O.Rt.No.906 dated 25.8.2020 is liable to I I be set aside. 10 According:y, this criminaI petition is attowed, setting aside the order dated 05.01.2022 passed in Crt.M.P.No.93 o'i 2021 in Crime No.17 of ?070 of WCO Team-lX, CCS, DD, H,yderabad pending on the fite of the Court of Metropotitan Sessrors Judge, Hyderabad. Ccn:;equently, G.O.Rt.No.906 Home (p,lssports) 6 Department, dated 25.08.2020 insofar as passing of ad_interim order of attachment pertaining to the subject property mentioned at St.No.4 in the schedule appended to the said G.O. is also set aside. 11 Miscel[aneous petitions if any pending shatt stand ctosed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL UTY REGISTRAR D ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 2 4 5 6 7 8 VSM/gh The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad The Xll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampalty, Hyderabad The Station House Officer, WCO Team -lX, CCS, DD, Hyderabad The Station House Officer, Central Crime Station P.S., Hyderabad One CC to SRl. B VAMSHIDHAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Md. Afzal Khan Advocate (OPUC) Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT) Two CD Copies \ t HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 e ,(q J o o I HE SI4 r \ 6'(' P 2 C)) 21 I'IAY Ztizi t t) .t E:;.'^11" .|)-f ORDER CRLP.No.7873 ot 2023 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION