Bona fide purchasers must be afforded opportunity for hearing before adverse property attachments, ensuring due process under law.

ORDER :

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.

1. This criminal petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is filed seeking to quash the order dated 05.01.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.93 of 2021 in Crime No.17 of 2020 of WCO Team-IX, CCS, DD, Hyderabad pending on the file of the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. The facts in brief are that a case in Cr.No.17 of 2020 was registered against two persons on the file of WCO Team-IX, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and Section 5 of TELANGANA PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS OF FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT , 1999 Act. It is to be seen that on the report of the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, in Letter No.HGP/ Leg/ Leg2/ 0055/ 2020 dated 15.6.2020, the Government of Telangana issued G.O.Rt.No.906 dated 25.8.2020 issued ad-interim order under Sections 3 & 5 of the TELANGANA PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS OF FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT , 1999 for the attachment of Immovable properties of one Allampally rajesh @ Raju (A.1) and his wife Smt. Allampallly Uma Devi (A.2) in Cr.No.17/ 2020 of CCS, DD, Hyderabad. It is to be further seen that the issue involved in this case pertains to Item No.4 of the schedule which is an open plot No.40, Sy.No.265/ 1 admeasuring 100 Sq.Yards situated at Budwel, Rajender Nagar, which was attached as per the above G.O.Rt.No.906 Home (Passports) Department, dated 25.08.2020.

3. Be that as it may, the petitioner herein who is a third party filed Crl.M.P.No.93 of 2021 in the subject crime contending that he purchased the subject property from A.1 in the year 2018 whereas the crime was registered against the accused in the year 2020. Hence the interim attachment of the subject property under the G.O.Rt.No.906 of 25.8.2020 was bad and sought for raising the attachment in respect of the subject property.

4. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, vide impugned order dated 05.01.2022 dismissed the petition observing that the subject property was specifically mentioned in the annexure to the G.O. Hence the present criminal petition.

5. The predominant contention of Sri B.Vamsidhar Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner purchased the property from the accused in the year 2018 and the complaint was lodged in the year 2020, hence, the order suffers de-jure. Moreover, the petitioner is unaware of the disputes between the accused and the complainant-2^nd respondent and hence the petitioner cannot be put to sufferance as he is a bona fide purchaser. He further contended that issuance of the G.O and its consequential Memo dated 03.9.2020 was without issuing any notice to the petitioner or without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence the G.O.Rt.No.906 is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, Sri E.Ganesh, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri Mohammed Afzal Khan, the learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the court below has passed the impugned order keeping in view the factual scenario behind the registration of the crime. Hence the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and hence the present criminal petition may be dismissed.

7. The factual episode which led to registration of the crime was that the accused in the subject crime had suffered losses in rice business in the year 2017 and thus the accused started chit business along with his wife / A.2, lured the innocent subscribes and have committed default in paying back their amounts. With an intention to file an insolvency petition, the accu