IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1190 OF 2010 BETWEEN:
Maramreddy Krishna Reddy S/o. Koti Reddy AND The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., and others …. Petitioner …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1190 OF 2010 ORDER:
The petitioner / A-4 questions order dated 18-05-2010 passed by the VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Guntur in Criminal M.P. No.1271 of 2010 in Crime No.80 of 2010 of Pedakakani Police Station, by which the lower Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. refusing to give interim custody of seized lorry bearing No.AP 7 TQ 2835 to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner / A-3 purchased the lorry in question after obtaining finance from HDFC Bank. Without paying installments towards repayment of finance obtained from HDFC Bank, he sold away the same to the first respondent / de facto complainant orally with an understanding that the fourth respondent will pay balance of installments to the Bank. The fourth respondent engaged the second respondent / A-1 as driver for running the vehicle. While so, A-1 sold the vehicle to A-2. On these allegations the fourth respondent gave report to the police and it is being investigated into. While so, the petitioner / A-3 filed the present petition in the lower Court under Section 457 Cr.P.C. claiming interim custody of the vehicle on the ground that he is registered owner of the vehicle, he was not having domain or custody of the vehicle when the police seized the same. Further, the lorry in question is under finance of HDFC Bank and at any time, HDFC Bank has got right to seize the vehicle for default in payment of installments. Thus, there are four claimants for this vehicle; (1) the petitioner / A-3 as registered owner of the vehicle, (2) the fourth respondent / de facto complainant as purchaser of the vehicle from the petitioner under oral agreement, (3) the third respondent / A-2 as purchaser of the vehicle from the first respondent / A-1 and (4) HDFC Bank which has got right to seize the vehicle in case of default in payment of installments. Thus, there is scramble for the vehicle in question.
3. The case under investigation is one for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. In these circumstances, the lower Court came to the conclusion that there is no sufficient material to decide the title to the property in question. Therefore, the lower Court gave liberty to the parties to approach Civil Court for decision as to title to the property. Further, HDFC Bank is not made a party either in the lower Court or in this Court. The
de facto complainant / fourth respondent is also not made a party to the petition in the lower Court. Therefore, this Court is also of the opinion that in the light of the above internal controversies and allegations, which cut case of the other, the Criminal Court cannot give interim custody of the vehicle to one of the four claimants for the property.
4. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 28, 2010 KTL