The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the documents as additional material documents in CRL.RC. No. 1061 ol 2024 as well as in LA.No.1 of 2024 and l.A. No.2 of 2024. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 BETWEEN: State Bank of lndia, Rep by its Authorised Officer, Rayaparthy branch, Warangal Dist. ... Petitioner/Respondent No,2 AND 1 Smt.Korukonda Battar Chudamani(Died) per LR Parashara Battar Sai Charan, S/o P B Venkata Ramana Battar, Age. 23 years, Occ. Student, Rl/o. 8-65/1 , Brahmana Veedi, Wardhanna pet, Warangal Dist, Telangana - 506313. ... RespondenUPetitioner 2. The State of Telangana, rep.by its Public Prosecutor High cou( at Hyderabad. ..RespondenURespondent No.2 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dt. 2211012024, which was extended vide order dt. 2111112024 in l.A.No.3 ol 2024, which was further extended on 1911212024 in CRL.R.C.No.1061 of 2024 . Counsel for the Petitioner :Sri Mandapati Murali Krishna Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri A Krishnam Raju The Court made the following: ORDER twM-r,r: ./ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL REV tstoN CASE No.10 61 ot 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS' 2023) seekrng to set aside the order dated 21 'Og'2024 in Crl'M'P'No 106 of 2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate' Warangal' under Section 14 of Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security lnterest Act' 2002 (for short 'the Act') and grant interim suspension till the disposal of the C'C.No.2Tl2o24beforeHon,bleDistrictConsumerDisputesRedressal Commission, Warangal. 2 Heard Mr.i/andapati Murali Krishna' learned counsel for petitioner, Mr.Jrthender Rao Veeramalla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr'A Krishnam Raju' learned counsel appearing for resPondent No.2

3. At hearing it is brought to the notice by the respondent No'2 that the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act cannot be challenged in regular revision or criminal proceedings and the .appropriate remedy is under Section 17 of the Act Learned "o'n\t ?------->?a1:*-f-,---' - ,.- - r-:;r::7PGF::.- ;-- *-.* i I I l ! I i has cited the authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M,/s. Phoenix Arc Private Limited v. Ganesh Murthy and anothe/.

4. Upon such submission, the learned counsel fcr the petitioner fairly concedes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled this issue. However, as the petitioner is disputing the fact that the Magistrate, before issuance of the order under Section 14 of the Act. did not properly inquire into the facts averred by Respondent No. 2 in the petition. Nonetheless, the petitioner is ready to arvail appropriate remedy under the Act, however, until such remedy is pursued. the petitioner's interest may be protected, lest, the petitioner would suffer pejudize and irreparable loss.

5. I have perused the materials on record.

6. The legal position regarding the maintainability of a criminal petition against an order passed by the Magistrate under Ser;tiorr .14 of the Act is no more res integra. The authority cited by the respondent No.2 in phoentx (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has unequivocally held that Section 482 of Cr. P C cannot be invokerj in such cases. Further. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the authority of R.D.Jain and Company v. Capital First Limited and othersz, has clarified that an qrder passed under Section 14 of the Act is only a rninisterral act and ' sLI, (c) No 220q r 120q1 ofl02t (dared 06.07.202:i) (2021) r scrLr 67: I I _) no adjudicatory process is involved in ordering for a secured creditor to obtain possession of secured assets.

7. That being the position and as the petitioner has fairly agreed to avail the remedies under Section 17 of the Act, this revision case stands unsuitable. Howsoever, having regard to the interim order passed earlier by this Court rn this revision, granting two weeks time to the petitioner to file appropriate application under the Act before appropriate forum, till then continuing the interim order is found to be proper. Accordingly the suspension of the order dated 21 09 2024 in Crl.M P.No.106 of 2024 in C C.No.27of 2024 passed by the learned ChiefJudicialMagistrateatWarangal,shallcontinuetobeinforcetill

16.05.2025 8 With this direction, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of M iscella neous petitiAns, pending if anY, qhqll 1tand closed SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTOJKFrcER To, '1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Warangal 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

3. One CC to Sri Mandapati Murali Krishna, Advocate IOPUCI 4. One CC to Sri A Krishnam Raju, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies ADK -il HIGH COURT DATED:01 10512025 I tr, E oF )6( .$ I \$\ \\ + tj' ORDER CRLRC. No.1061 of 2024\ DISPOSING OF THE CRLRC I 4t Z /z' I : i r : I I