IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6248/2013 BETWEEN:
SRI.P.NAGARAJU, S/O LATE T.PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT BAGALUR VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE – 562 149.
(BY SRI.H.MAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:
1. STATE BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BAGALUR POLICE STATION, BAGALUR, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK – 562 149.
2. SMT. SUDHA, W/O LATE P.BACHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT BAGALUR VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK AND DISTRICT, BANGALORE – 562 149.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP –II FOR R1; SRI.RAVI L.VAIDYA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.09.2013 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND S.J., DEVANAHALLI IN CRL.R.P.NO.15004/2013 CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. C.J., AND J.M.F.C., DEVANAHALLI IN CR.NO.17/2013, C.C.NO.1459/2013 BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned SPP-II for respondent No.1.
2. The petitioner has sought to set aside the order dated 21.09.2013 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli in Criminal Revision petition No.15004/2013.
3. Respondent No.2 herein made an application under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of Burma Teak Wooden logs numbering 117 pieces measuring 4.1144 CMTR which were seized in Cr.No.17/2013 and subjected to P.F.No.09/2013. Considering the material on record, by order dated 06.09.2013, the learned Magistrate granted interim custody of the said properties to respondent No.2. As against the said order, the petitioner herein preferred a revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. mainly on the ground that the properties in question are held by the petitioner jointly with the respondent No.2 in respect of which a civil suit is pending in O.S.No.307/2012. The Revisional Court by the impugned order dated 21.09.2013 has negatived the plea and has dismissed the petition thereby confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
4. Undisputedly, the properties in question were seized from the husband of respondent No.2, who is in possession of bills for having purchased the said wooden logs. The petitioner herein neither claimed the custody of the properties nor did he produce any document before the Trial Court or Revisional Court. Merely because a Civil Suit is pending between the parties, it cannot be a reason for the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the learned Magistrate. In the absence of any claim having been made by the petitioner for release either under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order. The order passed by the trial Court is an interim arrangement in respect of the custody of the seized properties. The Courts below have not determined any right or title to the properties seized in criminal proceedings. According to the petitioner himself, the suit for partition is pending between respondent No.2 and the petitioner. In that event, it is open for the petitioner to establish his right over the properties in the said suit. By the impugned order, the alleged right of the petitioner over the properties has not been taken away. The said order, therefore, cannot be set aside at the instance of the petitioner. The petition is misconceived. As a result, the petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/14 for stay does not survive for consideration.
Sd/- JUDGE TL