IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 1777 of 2005 Between: 1 Kamini Ispat Ltd., rep by Managing Director MR. Mahesh Agarwal S/o Ram Kishan Agawral IDA Bollaram, Medak District 2 Ankit Steel Enterprises, rep., by Mr. Om Prakash S/o Sri Hanuman Pershad Situated 7-3-109, Katedan, Ranga Reddy District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Station House Officer, P.S. IDA Bollaram Medak District 2 Ch. Srinivas Rao PS R.C. Puram, Lingampally, Medak District 3 B. Gangadhar, Investigation Officer, Sub- Inspector, PS IDA Bollaram, Medak District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus Declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in register the Crime against the petitioners on the basis of the complaint dt. 24-1-2005 in FIR No.9 of 2005 as null and void and violate of principles of natural justice and equity without due process of law thereby harming the fundamental rights and to pass such other order or orders which this Hon'ble High COurt may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.SHARAD SANGHI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner is not doing any business since long time and he has closed down his business in the month of January, 2005 and wanted to transfer the machinery to the 2nd petitioner situated at Katedan. It is stated that while transporting the machinery from the 1st petitioner company to the 2nd petitioner in the lorry bearing NO.AP12U 4883 the same was seized by the 1st respondent-Station House Officer, IDA Bollaram police station in F.I.R.No.9/05 for the offence under Section 380 IPC on a complaint given by one C.Govind, Head Constable attached to the said police station, and the petitioners were taken to the police station, made to sit there treating them as robbers or naxalites causing mental agony. It is stated that the said seized goods belong to the 1st petitioner and they were sought to be shifted to the 2nd petitioner alone and therefore, the seizure and registration of crime is illegal and arbitrary. 3. Counter has been filed stating that on 24-01-2005 at about 20-30 hours the said Govind lodged a complaint stating that as per the instructions of the 1st respondent while he was conducting the vehicle checking in front of Sri Balaji Weigh Bridge, IDA Bollaram along with other constables the said vehicle-DCM van bearing No.AP12U 4883 in which 300 HP Kirloskar company electric motor; routor steering, switch rod, compressor 7.5 HP electric motor; 5 HP electric motor; chain pulley and iron stand; gas cutting cylinder; equipment etc., were found transported without any documents. The driver-Badavath Ramulu failed to give any answer about the ownership of the said goods and therefore, complaint has been lodged stating that the above material was loaded at the 1st petitioner-Kamini Ispat Limited (sick unit) by one Sadanandhachari and was being transported to Katedan. The driver stated that material is being transported and therefore the complainant recovered the said property under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators and registered Cr.No.9 of 2005. 4. A perusal of the First Information Report goes to show that the case was registered against one Badavath Ramulu and Sadanandachari alone as A1 and A2, and A1 was arrested and sent to judicial custody. During the course of investigation it is stated that the 2nd petitioner was also added as A3 and while investigation is under progress pursuant to the stay granted by this Court the further investigation has been stopped and the goods vehicle has been released pursuant to the orders of the criminal Court under Section 451 Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.No.93 of 2005 in Cr.No.9 of 2005 on 09-03- 2005 on the condition that the petitioner shall not sell the property to any one or mortgage the same and produce as and when the same is required. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that even the 1st petitioner is owning the said property as it was being transported to the 2nd petitioner as a temporary measure and as there was no complaint about the theft it cannot be assumed and presumed that the said property is a stolen property and that the accused has committed any theft. 6. I am of the opinion that if the 1st petitioner company is claiming the ownership merely because the documents have not been produced at the time of inspection it cannot be presumed and assumed that it is a theft property but it is stated in the panchanama that when the driver was asked about the ownership of the goods he has said to have been made a statement that it was a stolen property and therefore the crime was registered. However, it is not possible or permissible for this Court to decide with regard to the said rival contention as to whether it was stolen property or whether the 1st petitioner is the owner of the said case. As the investigation is pending on the file of the 1st respondent and having regard to the facts and circumstances, 1st respondent is directed to complete the enquiry, however without arresting petitioners 1 and 2 and without taking any coercive steps against the respondents 2 and 3 by considering the representation of the 1st petitioner said to have been made on 23-01- 2005 claiming the ownership of the said goods and file a final report in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 12th March, 2008 Tsy