THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.6737 of 2010 DATED: 15.09.2010 Between: Smt. P. Nirmala .. Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor and others. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent- Sub Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, in handing over the custody of the articles seized from the house of the deceased N.S. Murali in connection with Crime No.78 of 2008 on the file of I Town Police Station, Madanapalle, to third parties, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to recover the said articles and produce before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle. Petitioner states that her husband’s brother, namely N.S. Murali, was found dead on 11.08.2008 at his residence at Madanapalle and on the complaint given by her husband, a case in Crime No.78 of 2008 was registered on the file of I Town Police Station, Madanapalle, under Section 174 of Cr.P.C (suspicious death). Pursuant thereto, the 3rd respondent- Sub Inspector of Police, visited the house of the deceased and seized a car, jewellery, silver articles and promissory notes etc., under a cover of panchanama. However, thereafter, the medical reports revealed the death of the deceased as natural. Petitioner further states that the deceased divorced his wife namely Kasturi, several years ago and he executed a will dated 02.08.2008, bequeathing all his properties in favour of her husband namely N.S. Prabhakar and his sisters namely K. Manjula and N.S. Lalitha. While so, after one year of the death of her brother-in-law, her husband also died on 26.08.2009. Thus, she and her sisters-in-law i.e. the two sisters of the deceased have become entitled to succeed to the entire movable and immovable properties of her late brother-in- law. Since they are entitled for return of the articles seized from the house of the deceased N.S. Murali, her sisters-in-law issued legal notice dated 07.09.2009 to the 3rd respondent, seeking return of the sad seized articles. But however, the 3rd respondent, instead of producing those articles before the concerned Criminal Court i.e. the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Madanapalle, handed over the same to some strangers, who are no way concerned with the same, and when asked, he did not disclose to whom he handed over those articles and did not respond to the legal notice dated 31.12.2009 issued by the sisters of the deceased. Hence, she filed the present writ petition seeking the relief as stated above. The 3rd respondent filed detailed counter-affidavit, admitting the death of the deceased N.S.Murali and registration of case in Crime No.78 of 2008 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. (suspicious death). It is stated that during the course of inquest panchanama, the 3rd respondent seized a Maruthi Car bearing registration No.AP-03-A- 0410, Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing registration No.AP-03-5846, some silver and gold ornaments, some promissory notes, stamped bond papers and other documents as specified in the seizure statement, so as to avoid taking away of those articles by the public, as the deceased alone was residing in his house. Pursuant thereto, nobody came forward claiming return of the seized property and the property was kept in the police custody for about 1½ years. While so, on 30.12.2009, one Ms. Anupriya, claiming to be the daughter of the deceased, came along with her mother i.e. the divorced wife of the deceased and sought to release the seized property in her favour, being the only legal heir of the deceased. Thereupon, after consultation with the superior authorities and as the seized property is not required any further for the purpose of investigation of the case, the 3rd respondent handed over the seized property to the said Anupriya, daughter of the deceased, on her executing a bond for Rs.15,00,000/- along with one surety for the said sum and also with a condition that the seized property should be produced as and when such production is ordered by the concerned authority. It is further stated that it is a case of suspicious death registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and thus F.I.R. and other relevant papers are submitted to the Mandal Executive Magistrate according to the Civil Procedure Code. Thus, the 3rd respondent denied the allegations that he handed over the seized property to strangers and did not furnish the particulars of the seized property to the petitioner when asked, and he categorically stated that the seized property was handed over to the daughter of the deceased, who claimed the property in the capacity of legal heir of the deceased, and the petitioner never approached him seeking the details of seized property, as alleged. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. Admittedly, the deceased N.S. Murali, brother-in-law of the deceased, divorced his wife namely Kasturi, several years ago, and she has been residing separately with her daughter namely Anupriya. Though the petitioner contends that the property seized from the house of the deceased was returned to some strangers, instead of returning to her and two sisters of the deceased, who are entitled to succeed to the same being his legal heirs, by virtue of the will executed by him, the fact remains, as is evident from the counter-affidavit of the 3rd respondent, the seized property was claimed by the daughter of the deceased namely Ms. Anupriya, in the capacity of his legal heir, and the same was released in her favour, on her executing the bond and furnishing surety as required and with a condition to produce the same as and when directed. Thus, the seized property was released in favour of the daughter of the deceased and the contention of the petitioner that the property was released in favour of strangers, cannot be said to be correct. Further, except stating that the deceased executed a will on 02.08.2008 in favour of her husband and her sisters-in-law and by virtue of the same they have become entitled for all the properties of the deceased, the petitioner did not produce before this Court a copy of the said will or any material in relation thereto. She has also not furnished any reasons for not claiming the property for about one year after its seizure. It is also surprising to note that the sisters of the deceased, who issued legal notice dated 07.09.2009 to the 3rd respondent, seeking return of the property after about one year of the seizure, and another legal notice dated 31.12.2009 questioning the impugned action of the 3rd respondent in returning the seized property to some others other than them, did not seek to question the impugned action of the 3rd respondent before this Court and it is the petitioner who alone sought to question the same. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no fault in releasing the seized property in favour of the daughter of the deceased, on her executing bond and furnishing surety, by stipulating condition for its production as and when required. If at all the petitioner has any right to seek return of the seized property, by virtue of the alleged will dated 02.08.2008 executed by her deceased brother-in-law, and has any grievance about such release of the property in favour of the daughter of the deceased, she has to establish such right before the competent Civil Court and seek redressal of her grievance, if the law so permits, and no relief can be granted by this Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 15th September, 2010 IBL