w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Dwaraka Skyline Llp v/s State of Telangana

    Crl R C No. 563 of 2020

    Decided On, 17 August 2021

    At, High Court of for the State of Telangana

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

    For the Appearing Parties: M.V. Pratap Kumar, Advocate.



Judgment Text

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking modification of the order, dated 06.11.2020, passed in Crl.M.P.No.3252 of 2020 in Crime No.622 of 2020 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. The case of the revision petitioner is that he is the owner of the premises known as Dwaraka Signature situated at Plot No.14/D/1, Sy.Nos.74 and 75, Jaihind Enclave, Madhapur, Hyderabad, and he leased out the said premises to the accused company and that the said accused company defaulted in payment of rent to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.17,46,400/-. It is further stated that a case in Crime No.622 of 202 of Madhapur Police Station, has been registered against the 2nd respondent herein, who is the accused in the above crime, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of I.P.C. and Section 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act and that during the course of investigation, they have seized all the computers and other material from the premises of the petitioner and there is no other material in the premises and that the police also locked the said premises.

3. The revision petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.3252 of 2020 before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, for removal of lock of the premises and handover the same to the petitioner. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, allowed the said petition by imposing certain conditions. The operative portion of the order is as under:

"Accordingly, the respondent is directed to remove the lock of premises on the condition that the petitioner herein shall give an undertaking that if in the future course of action it is found that the amount deposited with the petitioner herein is the amount collected by the accused as deposits from the public, the petitioner shall deposit the said amount into the Court. The petitioner shall give undertaking that if he failed to deposit the said amount it can be realized by sale of his property. It is further ordered at the cost of the petitioner and in the presence of both the parties i.e., petitioner and the respondent or any authorized officer on behalf of the respondent, they shall take photographs of the entire premises inside and outside, if necessary videograph of the entire premises shall also be taken and submit the same before the Court. The petitioner is further directed that he shall not make any alteration, additions and modifications which change the nature of the premises till the disposal of the suit. Further, the petitioner shall give an undertaking that he shall not mortgage, sell or create any charge over the said property till the disposal of the case and he shall give undertaking that he shall protect the premises by all means.

In the result, the petitioner is allowed directing the respondent to remove the lock and hand over the premises to the petitioner after fulfilling the above conditions."

4. Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent and perused the record. As per the cause title itself, the 2nd respondent is not the necessary party.

5. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury if he is restricted from making alterations to the petition schedule property and from alienating the petition schedule property.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that on 25.09.2019, the accused company transferred an amount of Rs.14,18,000/- through RTGS to the petitioner company. He further submits that the said amount was deposited by the innocent people as deposits with the accused company. He further submits that the case is still under investigation for collection of evidence as other cases are also registered and the material evidence is in the said premises, as such, if any alterations are made to the said premises, it might hamper the investigating agency in proceeding with further investigation.

7. During the pendency of the revision, the Designated Partner of the petitioner company has filed an undertaking by way of an affidavit stating that he will deposit an amount of Rs.14,80,000/- which was received from the accused company as security deposit under the terms of the Licence Agreement, dated 26.09.2019, before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to the said amount and prayed to set aside the impugned order to the extent of restraining the revision petitioner from making any alterations, additions or modifications to the property in question and from mortgaging, selling or creating any charge over the property.

8. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the subject premises. The case of the prosecution is that an amount of Rs.14,18,000/- has been transferred to the account of the petitioner from the account of the accused company through RTGS. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that the said amount was collected by the accused company from the innocent people as deposits. However, the contention of the petitioner is that the said amount was deposited by the accused company, as per the Licence Agreement, dated 26.09.2019 towards security. The petitioner has also given an undertaking that he will deposit the said amount without prejudice to his rights.

9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the condition imposed by the Court below in the order, dated 06.11.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

.3252 of 2020 in Crime No.622 of 2020, to the extent of restraining the petitioner from making any alterations, additions or modifications to the property and from mortgaging, selling or creating any charge over the property, is hereby set aside, subject to the condition of the revision petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.14,80,000/- before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, by way of Fixed Deposit. The other conditions in the impugned order shall remain un-altered. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. 11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
O R