ORDER:

1. The instant Criminal Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/de facto complainant seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 18.01.2021 passed in Crl.R.P.No.58 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-Cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, which confirmed the order dated 27.08.2018 passed in C.C.No.84 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kotabommali, giving liberty to the Complainant to approach the Civil Court to receive the case property (M.Os.4 to 9).

2. Petitioner herein was the de facto complainant, respondent No.1 herein was the accused in C.C.No.84 of 2013, Respondent No.2 herein is the State, Respondent No.3 is the Muthoot Finance Corporation Limited, who claimed the rights over the property as the gold articles are pledged by the accused for availing loan.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order passed by the learned Magistrate in CC No.84 of 2013 in not ordering return of property to the Petitioner/Complainant and giving liberty to her to approach the Civil Court since there is a rival claim from the accused and respondent No.3/Muthoot Finance, the Complainant approached the District Court in Crl.R.P.No.58 of 2018, which was dismissed confirming the order of the learned Magistrate.

4. Being aggrieved, the present Criminal Petition is filed on the following grounds:

a. As per Section 452 of the Code, after trial is concluded, the Court has to order for destruction/disposal/delivery of the property to the persons, who are entitled to and the revisional Court is erred in confirming the Order passed by the learned Magistrate ignoring the Provisions of Section 452 of the Code. Learned Magistrate having believed the case of the Complainant and had convicted the accused for the offence under Section 420 IPC, ought to have ordered the return of the property to the Complainant.

5. Heard Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2/State. Notice which was sent to respondent No.1 is returned unserved with an endorsement „addresse left without instructions‟.

Notice sent to respondent No.3 is served, but none represented.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the learned Magistrate having convicted the accused for the offence under Section 420 IPC ought to have ordered return of property(MOs.4 to 9) to the Petitioner/ Complainant. Instead, it is pointed out that a liberty is given to the Petitioner to approach the Civil Court since there is rival claim of title from the accused as well as Respondent No.3/Muthoot Finance, where the articles were recovered on the confession of the respondent No.1/Accused.

7. Learned counsel would further submit that when the property has been seized in a crime on the basis of the confession of the Accused, the Court has to pass order under Section 452 of the Code returning the said articles to the complainant. Learned counsel finally submits that the respondent No.1/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 420 IPC, who pledged M.Os.4 to 9 with respondent no.3/Muthoot Finance. It is also stated that when it is a property relating to the Crime, respondent No.3/Muthoot Finance has no role to claim their amount against the property (M.Os.4 to 9) which are gold articles taken by the accused by cheating the Complainant and further pledged them with respondent No.3.

8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that when respondent No.3 having received the articles in pledge gave loan to the accused, with that security, they have every right to claim to the extent of that loan over the said articles. However, requested that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

9. Now the point that would emerge for determination is:

Whether the Court below is justified to direct the complainant and other claimants to approach the Civil Court to