The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or orders, on in the nature of WRIT OF N/ANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the Respondents No. 2 in returning my property which was case property M.O.No. 19 ordered to be released vide Criminal M.P No.41 of 2025 in C.C No. 943 of 2O14 on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial fiilagistrate of First Class (For Prohibition and Excise Offences) Nalgonda and letter Dis No. 12012025, dt.1910412025 as illegal, arbitrary and violative Article 21 and 300A of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to release the case property forthwith { lA NO: 1 OF ?92! Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No.2 to 4 return the lron scrap load property to the Petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KIRAN PALAKURTHI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER T I I I I I ,// THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.23773 of 2025 ORDER: Aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.2 in returning the petitioner's property, which was the case property in M.O.No.19, ordered to be released uide Crl.M.P.No.4 I of 2025 rn C.C.No.943 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (for Prohibition and Excise Offences), Nalgonda (herein after referred as trial court) and letter Dis. No.12O 12025, dated 19.04.2025, tlne petitioner filed the present writ pctition. A consequential prayer is sought to direct respondent No.2 to release the case property.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is involved in scrap business for more than three decades at Chennai. He is doing the business iegally by complying all the statutory formalities. It is further submitted that the petitioner never committed any offence nor involved in any criminal cases. Based on a fictitious complaint filed by one K.Suribabu, Manager (P &A) Department in USTPL Company, a case has been registered against the petitioner in Crime No.232 of 2013 of PS Narketpally for the offences under Sections 42O, 264 and 265 ot IPC by respondent No.2. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 fiied I 2 charge sheet for the offences under Sections 420, 264,265, 2rt7, 4O7, 4OB read with Section 34 cf IPC and Sections 65 and 66 cf Information Technology Act, 2000. During the inrrestigation, the petitioner's property i.e. scrap load has becn seized by the Investigating Officer i.e. respondent No.2. It is fu:'ther submitteC that the respoirdent No.2 filect charge sheet alcng vrith the seized scrap load s,eighing 65,000 kgs worth of Rs. 1(i,25,000/- and deposited the same uide Forrn No.5O before the trial court. The tria-l court has taken cognizance of the offence and conducted trral uide C.C.No.943 of 2014. Thereafter. r-he trial court acquitted the petitioner of all the charges since 1,he prosecution failed to prove the g,ilt uide its judgment dat,:d 26.07.2Oi6. Aggrieved by the said jud,gment, the cle facto coml>lainant tiled a Criminal Appcal uide Crl.A.No. 155 of 2O16 ar-rd the same was dismissed by the learned I Additional District & Siessions Judge. Nalgonda, confirming the judgment of the tria,l court, on

23.06.2023. It is further submitted that after c.ismissal of the criminai apped, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No,4L of 2025 in C.C.No.943 of 2Ol4 for return of his ploperty, which was marked as M.O.No.19 and the said application was allovzed by the trial court directing respondent No.2 to return the crrse propert5r in favor of the petitioner uide letter Dis.No.l2O c,f 2025. It is further submil.ted that the petitioner appi.oachr:d respondent 1 , I l= l;l J No.2 with the said letter requesting to return his property. But the respondent No.2 failed to comply the order of the trial court. Questioning the action of respondent No.2, the present Writ Petition is fi1ed.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Home placed a copy of instructions before the Court issued by Sub-Inspector of Police, Narketpally Police Station respondent No.3, wherein it is submitted that a complaint 1S lodged by Sri Kodavati Suribabu, Manager (P &A) Department in USTPL Compan1,, Narketpally. On receipt of the complaint, FIR No.232 of 2O13 was registered against the petitioner (A1) on 19.09.2013 and other accused for the offences under Sections 42O, 264, 265, 267, 4O7, 4OA read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 65 & 66 of Information Technologr Act, 2000 by the Station House Officer, Narketpally Police Station, Nalgonda District. It is further submitted that since there was no sufficient place in the premises of Police Station to keep the said scrap, the sarrre was handed over to the complainant company with instructions to keep the sarne under safe custody until lurther orders. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 has enquired and recorded the statements of the employees, who worked in the USTPL Company. After recording their statements, the seized iron scrap \vas dumped in the complainant's company and photographs I , I I I I { I I .1 $,ere taken on 20.08.2025 and the same were a-nnexed to the 'r/l copy of instnictions.

1. Heard lea rned counsel for the petiticner a:rd the learneC Gorrernment Pir:ader lbr Home appearing for" respc,;rdcnt Nos.1 to 4

5. Learncd counsel for the petitioner submits that tlle respondcnt No.2 has not complied the orcler passed 1n C.C.itlo.943 of 2024 dated 26.07,2015 a:rci ttre letter dated

19.04.2025 urde Dis.No.12O of 2025, which vras directed to ieturn the se ized iron scrap to the petitioner. Horvever, IN contravention, the iron scrap was dumped in the complainant's company prcnrises and it is for the respondent No.2 to handover the same to the petitioner

5. In that rierv of the matter, thc respon<icnt No.2 is directed to take the stock of the iron scrap, u,hich has been dumped in the complainant company's premises and compll the order dated

19.O4.2025 uide lelter Dis.No.1.2O of 2025 within a period of four (04) from the date of receipt of a copy of this r;rder. It is also made clear that for the purpose of identilication amd for receiving the material, the petitioner shall co-operate rvith the respondent authoritios and the petitioner shall make their trrrangements in removing the stock from the comolainant's company. 5 7 With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in ti-ris petition, if any, shall stand closed. SD K.BHAVANI SWAMY TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' CTION OFFICER To, T.S.,Hyderabad

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Bldgs,Saifabad, 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Narketpally, Nalgonda Distrtct. 3. The Sub-lnspector of Police, Narketpally Police Station, Nalgonda District. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 5. One CC to SRl. KIRAN PALAKURTHI Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR HOIVE ,High Court for the State of Telangana at 7. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] BIU TKS HIGH COURT DATED:2010812025 ORDER WP.No.23773 of 2025 I ',/' A,:: ^i::. 1t tt1 8t5 .T . \lr :. li DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS /o /,4 J ,/zo ./2,