THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 27644 of 2008 Oral order: Questioning the action of respondent No.1, namely the Sub Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda Police Station, Secunderabad, in taking away his Scorpio bearing Registration No. AP 09 AW 4492 and handing over the same to respondent No.2 without following the procedure prescribed under law as illegal and arbitrary, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner states that he entered into agreement of sale with respondent No.2 for sale of property standing in the name of his minor son, and received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, and when respondent No.2 failed to perform his part of the contract, he sold the said plot to third parties. That being so, he states that respondent No.1 at the instance of respondent No.2 summoned him to the police station and threatened him to pay an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-, and as he did not pay the same, he took away the Scorpio and handed over the same to respondent No.2 and forced him to sign on some blank papers. Thereafter, on coming to know that a case in Crime No. 555 of 2007 was filed against him and his son, he obtained anticipatory bail in Crl. M.P. No. 3248 of 2008 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Now, he questioned the action of respondent No.1 in taking away his Scorpio without following the procedure prescribed under law and handing over the same to respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary. Respondent No.1 filed counter. The learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, reiterating averments made in the counter submitted that respondent No.2 filed a private complaint against the petitioner and his son on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 415, 418, 420, 425 and 120-B r/w 34 IPC, and the same having been referred, he registered the same as Crime No. 555 of 2007 for the said offences and took up investigation. The gravaman of the private complaint is that petitioner and his son having taken advance for sale of the property by executing an agreement of sale, alienated the same in favour of third parties. The allegation made by the petitioner that respondent No.1 demanded him to pay Rs.3,50,000/- and seized his Scorpio and handed over the same to respondent No.2 and took his signatures on blank papers, is specifically denied. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner and his son had cheated him by selling the property, in respect of which they executed agreement of sale in their favour, to third parties, and with a view to prevent the police from registering the case, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. He submitted that the petitioner came for a settlement, and in the settlement, he gave his Scorpio as security until he paid the amount which he received towards advance pursuant to the agreement of sale. He submitted that neither respondent No.1 nor his subordinates interfered in the matter, except upon registration of the private complaint filed by him against the petitioner and his son. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. The allegation made by the petitioner that respondent No.1 demanded him to pay Rs.3,50,000/- to respondent No.2 and seized his Scorpio and handed over the same to respondent No.2 and forced him to sign on blank papers, is specifically denied by respondent No.2. While it is the case of respondent No.2 that the private complaint lodged by him on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 415, 418, 420, 425 and 120-B r/w 34 IPC, was referred to the police, who registered the same as Crime No. 555 of 2007, and pursuant to registration of such complaint, the petitioner approached him and gave the Scorpio as security till he paid the monies which he took towards advance for sale of the property by executing agreement of sale, and which property, he sold to some third parties, and thereby indulged in cheating him. Considering the denials made by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and having regard to the fact that a crime was already registered against the petitioner and his son, which is pending adjudication on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and having regard to the stand taken by respondent No.2 that the petitioner is said to have offered the Scorpio as security until he repaid the amounts received by him towards advance, I am of the considered opinion that the allegations made by the petitioner against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appear to be not correct. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ N.V.RAMANA,J Dated: 9th February, 2009 KSR