HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3326 OF 2008 Dated 17-03-2011 Between: Mohd Abdul Khadeer @ Sikander and 8 others. ……..Appellants And: The State of A.P., rep. by PP and another ………Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3326 OF 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of the order passed in Criminal M.P.No.1605 of 2008 in C.C.No.111 of 2008 by the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad dated 24.03.2008. T h e 2nd respondent herein has filed the Criminal M.P.No.160 of 2008 in C.C.No.111 of 2008 under Section 93 Cr.P.C for issuance of search warrant for seizure of jehez articles, gold ornaments, electronic items etc., from the house bearing No.12-1-449/1, Shanti Nagar, Near Shiva Temple, Lalapet, Secunderabad. The said petition was allowed by the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally on 24.3.2008 by a single line order “Issue of search warrant to the premises shown in the petition to the articles shown in the list and return warrant by 16.5.2008.” In pursuance of the said search warrant, the S.H.O, Woman Police Station, North Zone, Hyderabad has searched the premises bearing No.12-1-449/1, Shanti Nagar, Near Shiva Temple, Lalapet, Secunderabad and seized about 44 articles. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the said order was passed without giving any notice to the petitioners. More over by the date of issuing of the said search warrant, the charge sheet was also filed against them. He further contended that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is not a speaking order as the said order does not disclose any reasons to believe that the information furnished by the petitioner is correct. In the petition, it is alleged that her husband and mother-in- law and father-in-law are making preparations to sell away her gold ornaments and silver ornaments along with other articles and also trying to mis-appropriate the articles given at the time of her marriage and also they are trying to shift the above items from their house to some unknown place. Under Section 93 of Cr.P.C, the Search warrant can be issued:- 1(a) Where any court has reason to believe that the person to whom a summons or order under Section 91 or requisition under the Sub Section(1) of Section 92 has been, or might be, addressed, will not or would not produce the document or thing as required by such summons or requisition, or b) Where such document or thing is not known to the court to be in possession of any person or c) Where the court considered the purpose of any enquiry, particularly of other proceeding under this Code will not serve by general search or inspection, it may issue a search warrant. In the present case, 2nd respondent had sought for the search of the house of her in-laws for jehez articles which were given at the time of her marriage. But she has not enclosed the list of articles given to her at the time of her marriage by her parents and no reasons are stated in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate for issuing the search warrant. In a decision reported in Shri Melicio Fernandas Complainant v. Shri Mohan Nair and another[1] wherein the special bench of Goa, Damon and Diu held that: “Issuance of search warrant is a judicial function and court must apply its mind judiciously.” The petitioner’s counsel has pleaded that the learned Magistrate has not given any reason for issuance of the search warrant in her order and as such the same is liable to be set aside. Admittedly by the date of issuing search warrant, the charge sheet was also filed and the same was taken on file by the learned Magistrate. The charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506, 406, 324 read with 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and there is no allegation in the said charge sheet that the accused are trying to dispose of the jehew articles given to the 2nd respondent herein at the time of her marriage. But only mentioned Section 406 IPC. Therefore, the Magistrate has not applied her mind while issuing the search warrant. Therefore, the order passed in Criminal M.P.No.1605 of 2008 in C.C.No.111 of 2008 by the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad dated 24.03.2008 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the order passed in Criminal M.P.No.1605 of 2008 in C.C.No.111 of 2008 by the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad dated 24.03.2008. ______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD,J. Date:17.03.2011. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3326 OF 2008 Dated 17-03-2011 Gk. [1] AIR 1966 GOA, Daman and DIU 23 (vol.53.C.3)