HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11277 of 2005 DATED : 24.11.2009 BETWEEN : D. Umapathi Reddy. ......Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City & others. ......Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11277 of 2005 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 in not seizing the machinery, namely, Used Heidelberg 72 V Spped Master 4 Colour Offset Printing Machine S/N.517-878 with Standard Access, Made in Germeny, which is in the custody of the 4th respondent, in connection with Crime No.828 of 2004 pending on the file of Banjara Hills Police Station, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Petitioner is the complainant in Crime No.828 of 2004 on the file of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad. In his complaint, the petitioner has stated that he is the partner in Card Box Company, Offset Printers at Nampally Station Road, and that they have planned to purchase four-colour printing machine from the South West Equipment Company, situated in USA, with the help of an Indian agent by name Mr. J. Srinivasa Reddy, who is respondent No.4 herein. It is his complaint that though certain amount was paid to respondent No.4, but he has not transmitted the said amount to the South West Equipment Company for purchase of machinery in terms of the agreement and has mis- used the amount, and thus, cheated the complainant. In connection with the said complaint, a case is registered in Crime No.828 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. 3. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that by mis-using the amount given by them, the respondent No.4 has purchased certain machinery, which is liable to be seized in connection with the crime registered against him, but inspite of the same, no steps are being taken for seizure of such machinery. 4. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.4. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that earlier, he has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3086 of 2005, wherein, the petitioner herein was figured as respondent No.7, and against the interlocutory order passed in the said writ petition, a writ appeal was preferred, and when it was brought to the notice of this Court that the machinery was not in the hands of the petitioner i.e. respondent No.4 herein, but was sold to some third party, this Court has ordered to maintain status quo. 5. Whether a particular machinery is to be seized or not, in connection with a case registered on the complaint of the petitioner, is a matter to be investigated by the Police, but when the investigation is not completed, no directions can be given for seizure of such machinery. In any event, after submission of final report, if there are any objections to the petitioner, it is open for him to put-forth his objections before the Magistrate concerned, but even before completion of investigation, he cannot seek directions for seizure of machinery at this stage. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 24th November 2009 ajr