HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7888 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner company, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., with a prayer to set aside the order dated 23.11.2007 passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P(S.R.)No.6703 of 2007 in Crl.M.P.No.991 of 2007 in Crl.M.P.No.978 of 2007, refusing to entertain the said petition and returning the same. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner company filed a suit in O.S.No.304 of 1999 on the file of the II Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, against M/s. Asanzubi Group of Companies and 10 others, for recovery of amount. Along with the suit, the petitioner company filed I.A.No.1033 of 1999 for attachment of the properties of M/s. Asanzubi Group of Companies and M/s. Franzan & Co. and the trial Court ordered attachment of the properties by an order dated 20.07.1999 and subsequently decreed the suit in part on 31.08.2000. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of rest of the suit claim, the petitioner company filed C.C.C.A.No.204 of 1999 before this Court and the same was allowed by judgment dated 23.06.2006. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner company filed E.P.No.75 of 2007 on the file of the II Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to execute the decree and the said Court ordered attachment and sale of the properties by an order dated 18.09.2007. Thereafter, on coming to know that the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, is seeking to auction the same properties in Crl.M.P.No.991 of 2007 in Cr.M.P.No.978 of 2007 filed by the 1st respondent herein, without its notice, the petitioner company approached the said Court and filed Crl.M.P(S.R.)No.6703 of 2007 by way of invoking the provisions under Section 84(2) Cr.P.C., with a prayer to set aside the order of attachment of the properties in the above case. The said petition was returned on the ground that the petition is not maintainable under Section 84(2) Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner company submitted that even though wrong section is quoted by the petitioner company, the trial Court can invoke the appropriate provisions in the interest of justice. This court perused the record as well as the impugned order. It is evident from the record that the petitioner company has already obtained decree in respect of the properties in question. Further, the trial Court returned the petition filed by the petitioner company on the grounds that the petition is not maintainable under Section 84(2) Cr.P.C. and no objection has been made before passing an order making the ad interim order of attachment absolute under Section 7(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors Financial Establishment Act, 1999 (for short “the Act”). The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor informed this Court that if any final order is passed by the trial Court in connection with attachment of property, the aggrieved party has a right to approach the trial Court by way of invoking the provisions under Section 11 of the Act. In view of the above, the petitioner is advised to approach the Court concerned and file an application invoking the provisions under Section 11 of the Act for redressal of its grievance. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed shall stand closed. _____________ RAJA ELANGO, J 17th February, 2011 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.P.No.7888 of 2007 (Disposed of) 17th February, 2011 CBS