IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.16943 of 2007 Between: M.A.Muneem @ Haji Seth. … Petitioner And: State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by Senior Executive Officer, Office of the Additional Director General of Police, CID, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana . Counsel for the Respondent: AGP for Home for R.1. Sri V.Dharamasuri for R.2. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not returning/handing over the original title documents of the petitioner relating to the property known as M/s.Shalimar Gardens, bearing premises No.5-8-323/1 to 5 despite liquidation of the loan pertaining to Loan Account Nos.57 and 85 of 1998, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the owner of the above- mentioned property. He availed loan from M/s. Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., respondent No.2 herein. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner on the ground that he has taken the loans in the names of fictitious firms, viz., M/s.Saibaba Enterprises, M/s.Golden Enterprises and M/s.Royal Enterprises and they are represented by fictitious persons, by name, Yousuf Khan, Md.Siraj and Mehdi Hussain respectively, and that false no due certificate was obtained by him in respect of the said loans. The petitioner pleaded that during the pendency of the criminal case all the loan amounts were repaid under OTS Scheme. He averred that since the entire loan was cleared in respect of loan A/c.Nos.57 and 85 of 1998, he is entitled to return of the original title deeds, which were mortgaged as security for repayment of the said loan amounts; and that return of the said documents seized by the Police does not affect the outcome of the pending criminal case because of repayment of the entire loan amount. The petitioner has undertaken to substitute the original documents with certified copies of the same. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer it is, inter alia, stated that the original documents were seized during investigation into the criminal case and that if the loans are cleared, it can only relieve him from civil liability and that the petitioner cannot be relieved of the criminal charge. It is further stated that investigation was completed and the charge-sheet is ready to be filed; and that during the trial the original title deeds and other documents are required to be marked as exhibits on behalf of the prosecution. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that subsequent to the filing of the counter-affidavit, charge-sheet No.1 of 2008 was filed, which was taken on file as C.C.No.364 of 2008 on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, and that original documents of title pertaining to the property of the petitioner were filed along with the charge-sheet. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Recovery Manager of respondent No.2, he submitted that the petitioner tendered repayment of Rs.81,16,704/- and Rs.1,77,43,022/- by way of demand drafts/bankers’ cheques drawn in favour of respondent No.2, and that the said amounts were encashed. It is further stated that by reason of repayment, loan A/c.Nos.57 and 85 of 1998 were closed as per the Modified One Time Settlement Scheme. He also stated that respondent No.2 has no objection for return of the said documents. On the insistence of this Court, the Managing Director of respondent No.2-Bank also filed a counter- affidavit, wherein he took a similar stand. From the facts noted above, it is clear that the petitioner has repaid the loan amounts under OTS Scheme. As on today, there is no outstanding amount recoverable from the petitioner. The original documents of title were handed over to respondent No.2 for creation of mortgage for due payment of the loan amounts. The scope of criminal case is confined to the culpability of the petitioner in allegedly creating fictitious loan accounts and obtaining false no dues certificate. Therefore, the original documents of title have no bearing on the adjudication of the culpability of the petitioner in the pending criminal case. Hence, in my considered view, continued withholding of the documents would only deprive the petitioner of his right to enjoy the property and the same will not serve any purpose. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. Respondent No.2-Bank is directed to apply for return of the original title deeds by making appropriate application along certified copies of original documents before the learned VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such application being made, the learned VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate shall pass appropriate order returning the original title deeds to respondent No.2 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the said application from it. Immediately after receiving the original documents of title, respondent No.2 shall return the same to the petitioner. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:17-7-2009. Note: Issue CC in five days. (BO) MNR