IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22322 of 2001 Between: Vanam Narayan Mehar, S/o.Laxmaiah, R/o.H.No.Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Station House Officer, (Raja Ratnam), Circle Inspector, Police Station Armoor, Nizambad District, Andhra Pradesh. 2 Dr.Madhusheker, S/o.Lingaiah, R/o.M.J.Hospitals, Perkit, Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to pass an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus thereby directing the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to return the items captured from the petitioner as per mentioned in the annexure and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.DAMODAR MUNDRA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : . THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.22322 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is filed with a prayer to direct respondents 1 and 2 to return 26 items mentioned in the Schedule I and 3 items in Schedule II appended to the writ petition. The petitioner states that there were some disputes between himself and the second respondent and he got issued a notice dated 24.4.2001 to the second respondent for repayment of Rs.20,20,244/-. It is stated that with a view to avoid his liability towards the petitioner, the second respondent approached the first respondent and in collusion with each other, they have forcibly taken away the articles mentioned in the Schedules by illegally arresting the petitioner and registering Crime No.88 of 2001 by Armoor Police Station which was later on numbered as C.C.No.13 of 2002 in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Armoor. The petitioner has also given the detailed particulars of each and every article. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit virtually denying the allegations. It is stated that the petitioner was arrested in connection with a complaint lodged by the second respondent and that none of the articles mentioned in the Schedules were taken away by them. He further mentioned that certain documents such as cheques and letters of the Andhra Bank were taken by the Investigating Officer for the purpose of filing charge sheet and the entire material together with charge sheet was filed into the trial court on 25.8.2001. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home. The petitioner had furnished a long list of articles said to have been forcibly taken away by the respondents from him. The list includes construction material such as timber, a car, several papers and cheques etc. In his counter, the first respondent clearly stated that the petitioner did not make any complaint about loss of said articles. Neither any reply affidavit is filed nor the statement is contradicted during the course of the arguments. In case the petitioner lost the articles mentioned in the writ petition, the natural course of conduct would have been to submit a complaint before the police station concerned. At any rate, the question as to whether the articles mentioned above are in the custody of respondents 1 and 2 and if so, whether the petitioner is entitled to recover the same, is a matter, which can be effectively adjudicated in a properly constituted suit. Viewed from any angle, no relief can be granted and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 25-11-2008 Stp .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TML}