1 APHC010385582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 7896 & 3712/2025 Criminal Petition No:7896 of 2025: Between: 1. EARTH STEIN PRIVATE LTD, OFFICE AT FLAT NO.SY. NO. 71, TEKKALI ROAD, LINGALAVALASA VILLAGE, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ARIVUDAINAMBI, S/O THIUNAVUKARASU. 2. ARIVUDAINAMBI, S/O THIUNAVUKARASU, NATIVE OF ARUNACHALAM 2ND STREET, SHENOY NAGAR, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU - 600030, PRESENTLY AT OFFICE AT FLAT NO. SY. NO. 71, TEKKALI ROAD, LINGALAVALASA VILLAGE, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TEKKELI POLICE STATION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. 2. BHASKAR ALIAS LAKHINANABHASKARA RAO, S/O LATE JAGGAYYA, AGED 52 YEARS, THIRLANGI VILLAGE, TEKKALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, QUARRY IN-CHARGE, EARTH STEIN PVT. LTD. 3. G THIRUNANAM, S/O GOVINDA SWAMY, AGED 70 YEARS, H.NO. 39, G.2 SEASHORE APARTMENTS 3RD AVENUE, THIRUVALLUR NAGAR, THIRUVANMIYUR POST AND DISTRICT. 4. GTP RAVI MAKER ALIAS RAVI KUMAR R, S/O LATE RAMAYUN, AGED 52 YEARS, ROTARY NAGAR-1, 0PP. HANUMAN TEMPLE TEKKALI VILLAGE. 5. RAVADA UMA MAHESWARA RAO LATE PAPAYYA, AGED 62 YEARS, R/O VISHWANADHAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTABOMMALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 6. KRISHNA NARAYANA, S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. MANAGING DIRECTOR PURE MINERALS GRANITE COMPANY, MELASATIVADA VILLAGE, TEKKALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 2 7. B PRABHAKAR, MADALAPRABHAKARA RAO, S/O M.C. RANGAPPA, AGED 63 YEARS, H.NO. 25-86/49, 4F-504, SARAT SANKALP PARADISE PM PALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM RURAL. 8. CHAKALANI ALIAS SHAILENDRA SAKLANI, S/O LATE V.D. SEKLANI, AGED 59 YEARS, D.NO. 10902, SIDDHARTH NAGAR, KAZIPET, WARANGAL, TELANGANA. 9. MANIKANTA ALIAS MANIKANTAM R, S/O LATE RATHINASAMY, AGED 47 YEARS, IN-CHARGE, EARTH STEIN PVT. LTD. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. M. SAPTHAGIRI AND Criminal Petition No.3712 of 2025 Between: 1. KRISHNAN NARAYANA, S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC.MANAGING DIRECTOR, PURE MINERAL AND GRANITE COMPANY, MELASATIVADA VILLAGE, TEKKELI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. STATE OF AP, BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TEKKELI POLICE STATION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. 2. B PRABHAKAR MADALA PRABHAKARA RAO, S/O MC RANGAPPA 63 YEARS, CASTE BY KAMMAS, H.NO.25-86/49, 4F-504, SARAT SANKALP PARADISE, PM PALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM RURAL. 3. MANIKANTA MANIKANTAM R, S/O RATHINASAMY LATE, 47 YEARS. CASTE BY BC, IN-CHARGE OF EARTH STEIN PVT. LTD. 4. BHASKAR LAKHINANA BHASKARA RAO, S/O LATE JAGGAYYA, 52 YEARS. CASTE BY KALINGA, THIRLANGI VILLAGE, TEKKALI MANDAL, SRIKAUAM DISTRICT, QUARRY INCHARGE EARTH STEIN PVT. LTD. 5. NAMBI T ARIVUDAI NAMBI, S/O LATE THIUNAVUKARASU, AGED 59 YEARS, ARUNACHALAM 2ND STREET, SHENOY NAGAR, CHENNAI TAMILNADU, DIRECTOR OF EARTH STEIN PRIVATE LIMITED. 6. G THIRUNANAM, S/O GOVINDA SWAMY 70 YEARS, MUDHALIAR CASTE, H.NO.39 G.2 SEASHORE APTS, 3RD AVENU, THIRUVALLUR NAGAR THIRUVANNIYUR POST AND DISTRICT 3 7. CHAKALANI SHAILENDRA SAKLANI, S/O. V.D SEKLANI LATE, 59 YEARS. CASTE BY BRAHMIN, D/NO. 10902, SIDDHARTH NAGAR KAZIPETA, WARANGAL TELANGANA A- 8. GTP RAVI MAKER RAVI KUMAR R, , S/O LATE RAMAYUN, 52 YEARS, CASTE BY YADAVA, ROTARY NAGAR-1, 0PP. HANUMAN TEMPLE, TEKKALI VILLAGE. 9. RAVADA UMA MAHESWARA RAO LATE PAPAYYA, 62 YEARS. CASTE BY VELAMA, R/O. VISHWANADHAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTABOMMALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM D ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. M. SAPTHAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. N SIVA REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3. G RAJA BABU The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Criminal Petition No.7896 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioners/Claimant and A4 under Section 528 of BNSS seeking quashment of the order dated 16.05.2025, passed in Crl.M.P.No.384 of 2025 in Crime No.353 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tekkali. Criminal Petition No.3712 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner / Defacto Complainant under Section 528 of BNSS seeking quashment of the order dated 26.03.2025, passed in Crl.M.P.No.218 of 2025 in Crime No.353 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tekkali. 2. Since the subject matter in both the Criminal Petitions is one and the same, they are being decided by way of this common order. 4 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in Crime No.353 of 2023 on the file of Tekkali Police Station. 4. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners in Crl.P.No.7896 of 2025 and Respondents in Crl.P.No.3712 of 2025, Sri M.Sapthagiri, learned counsel for the Petitioner in Crl.P.No.3712 of 2025 and and Respondents in Crl.P.No.7896 of 2025 and Ms.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State in both the petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners / Claimant and A4 would submit that the subject vehicles are the property of the Petitioners‟ company. Learned counsel would further submit that the written undertaking given by the defacto complainant clearly shows that the Petitioner - Company has the original claim over the subject vehicles. There are case and counter-case in Crime No. 353 of 2023 and Crime No. 354 of 2023, which were registered based on the complaints lodged by the Petitioner – Company as well as the Defacto complainant against each other. Learned counsel would further submit that the subject vehicles were in the possession of the petitioner company at all times. It is further submitted that the police, after due investigation, referred the case in Crime No. 353 of 2023 as “false” and filed a final report vide R.C. No. 8 of 2024. Learned counsel would further submit that the defacto complainant has no legal authority to claim the subject vehicles, as he submitted his resignation as a Director of the Petitioner-Company on 16.06.2023, which was duly accepted. It is further submitted that, in view of the undertaking given by the defacto complainant, the Petitioner - Company 5 has been using the machinery. However, the Police, without following due process, illegally seized the subject vehicles. This action, despite the closure of the FIR, amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel would further submit that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised in multiple decisions that, when there is a dispute of fact regarding the use or functioning of a seized asset, and its continued retention would cause further loss, interim custody should be granted to avoid decay and disuse. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is contrary to these settled principles. It is further submitted that the defacto complainant had earlier lodged a similar complaint with the Central Crime Branch, Chennai, which was registered as Crime No. 102 of 2024, wherein the charge sheet was filed referring the matter as a “Mistake of Fact.” The protest petition filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases, Egmore, Chennai, was also dismissed vide order dated 17.04.2025. Learned counsel finally submits that the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.384 of 2025 passed by the learned Magistrate is without application of judicial mind and is liable to be set aside 6. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is contrary to law. Learned counsel would further submit that the learned Magistrate has ignored the material evidence and erroneously dismissed the application filed by the defacto complainant. It is further submitted that the defacto complainant is the owner of the subject vehicles, which is proved by the registration certificates 6 and other documents of ownership. Learned counsel finally prays to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.218 of 2025. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 8. A keen perusal of the material on record goes to show that the learned Magistrate passed the impugned orders while dismissing the petitions filed by the Claimant and A4, as well as the defacto complainant, for the release of the vehicles. Admittedly, the Claimant is a Company dealing with mineral processing and heavy industrial machinery. There is also no dispute that the defacto complainant was previously one of the Directors of the Petitioner - Company and was entrusted with managerial responsibilities, including asset procurement, financial control, and operational expansion. It is alleged that, being one of the Directors, the defacto complainant purchased certain machinery and other properties in his own name by using the funds of the Petitioner - Company, and thereby committed misappropriation of an amount totalling Rs.1,73,11,894. Consequently, the Petitioner Company lodged a complaint with the SHO, Tekkali, against the defacto complainant, which was registered as Crime No. 354 of 2023 for the offence under Section 406 IPC. 9. The material further discloses that on 16.06.2023, the defacto complainant submitted his resignation for the Directorship of the Petitioner - Company, and A4 herein was appointed as one of the Directors of the said Company. The defacto complainant also executed an undertaking, agreeing to 7 allow the Petitioner - Company to continue the operation of the subject vehicles until the settlement of the entire accounts of the Company and handing over of all relevant documents to the Company. 10. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner - Company, and a bare perusal of the material on record shows that the defacto complainant had earlier lodged a similar complaint with the Central Crime Branch, Chennai, which was registered as Crime No. 102 of 2024. In that case, after completion of due investigation, the police filed the charge sheet, referring to the matter as a “Mistake of Fact.” Aggrieved thereby, the defacto complainant filed a protest petition before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases, Egmore, Chennai, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.04.2025, and thereby confirming the report filed by the investigating officer. 11. In the present case, i.e., FIR No. 353 of 2023, after investigation, the police referred the case as „false‟ and filed a final report in R.C.No. 08 of 2024, which has attained finality. Despite this, and during the pendency of the referred charge sheet, the Police, without following due process, illegally seized the subject vehicles, which are being used by the Petitioner - Company as per the undertaking given by the defacto complainant. 12. In such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.384 of 2025 rejecting the custody of the subject vehicles to the Petitioner- Company, is erroneous and warrants interference of this Court. However, the impugned order dated 26.03.2025, passed in 8 Crl.M.P.No.218 of 2025 in Crime No.353 of 2023 by the learned Magistrate, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, Criminal Petition No.7896 of 2025 is allowed setting aside the order dated 16.05.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.384 of 2025 in Crime No.353 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tekkali. The Petitioners shall submit an undertaking affidavit to produce the said vehicles as and when directed by the Court. Criminal Petition No.3712 of 2025 is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:18.09.2025 Asr 9 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.Nos.7896 and 3712 of 2025 Dt.18.09.2025 Asr