Property attachment should be lifted when the party complies with the law and does not evade the judicial process.

ORDER

Aggrieved by the refusal of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - V, Kozhikode, and the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, to lift the attachment ordered over the property of the petitioner under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the petitioner has approached this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner was the accused in C.C.No.638 of 2009, a case relating to the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . The learned Magistrate initiated proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner, since she did not appear at the initial stages of the proceedings in the said case. Accordingly, the 4.75 cents of land belonging to the petitioner, comprised in Survey No.77 and Re-Survey No.431/2 of Feroke Village, was attached as per the directions of the learned Magistrate under Section 83 Cr.P.C. However, the petitioner later on surrendered before the learned Magistrate and abided by the due process of law. She also paid the entire amount due to the complainant and settled the issue involved in that case. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate permitted the withdrawal of the complaint and acquitted the petitioner as per Annexure 1 - order on 14.09.2009. However, the petitioner omitted to alert the learned Magistrate about the need to lift the attachment ordered over her property at the initial stages of the proceedings in that case. It was only in the year 2015 that she realised that her property still remained under attachment, and that the aforesaid encumbrance was reflected in the documents maintained by the authorities concerned. Accordingly, the petitioner filed CMP No.1351 of 2019 before the learned Magistrate with a prayer to lift the attachment. The aforesaid petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate for the reason that the petitioner did not approach the court within the period of two years from the date of attachment for lifting the attachment, and hence no order could be passed in that regard. Though, the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in revision before the Court of Sessions, Kozhikode, the learned Sessions Judge also declined the prayer of the petitioner stating the reason that after the expiry of two years from the date of attachment, only the Government could pass appropriate orders lifting the attachment. Aggrieved by the aforesaid verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner has approached this Court with this petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent - Bank and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

4. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent - Bank submitted that the Bank has absolutely no objection in lifting the attachment ordered over the property of the petitioner since the petitioner had cleared the entire liability with the Bank as early as 2009. The learned Public Prosecutor obtained a letter from the District Collector about the present stage of the property attached in this case. As per the letter dated 03.01.2026 of the District Collector, Kozhikode, addressed to the learned Advocate General, it is stated that the property still remains under the possession of the petitioner, and that even the land tax for the 2025-2026 financial year has been remitted by the petitioner under her Thandaper. Thus, it is made clear by the District Collector in the aforesaid letter that the property had not been sold or otherwise disposed of by the Government consequent to the attachment effected in this case.

5. It is true that Sub Section 3 of Section 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 88(3) BNSS) stipulates a period of two years for the person whose property has been