THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.9146 and 9200 OF 2025

COMMON ORDER

Since the petitioners in both Criminal Petitions are the same individuals, these petitions are being heard and disposed of together through this common order.

2. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter ‘the BNSS’), seeking quashment of the proceedings and set aside the orders dated 30.06.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. Nos. 596 and 1183 of 2025 in Crime No. 146 of 2025; and to issue appropriate directions to the de facto complainant/respondent No. 2 for the surrender of the subject vehicle before the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal–Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

3. I have heard Mr.S.Viplav Simha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

4. The relevant facts, in brief, are as that the vehicle in question, which was seized in connection with the present crime, was granted pursuant to the trial Court allowing his petition. Simultaneously, the trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/accused, observing that the petitioner had failed to produce any documentary evidence establishing a legal right or entitlement to the vehicle. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Petitions seeking to set aside the order granting interim custody in favour of the de facto complainant/respondent No. 2, and to secure interim custody of the vehicle in his own favour.

5. I have perused the materials on record.

6. As per the record, the vehicle in question was allegedly seized from the possession of the petitioner/accused in both Criminal Petitions, the documentary evidence, including the R.C., does not indicate that the petitioner holds any legal title or ownership over the said vehicle. There is no material on record establishing a prima facie proprietary interest in the vehicle on the part of the petitioner.

7. Upon consideration of the facts, it is noted that the Registration Certificate (R.C.), particularly as reflected in Form-24, Crl.P. Nos. 9146 and 9200 of 2025) as the registered owner of the vehicle. In light of this, the trial Court’s decision to grant interim custody of the vehicle to respondent No. 2 appears reasonable and legally justified.

8. Accordingly, the findings rendered by the trial Court in Crl.M.P. Nos. 1183 and 596 of 2025 are found to be legally sound and proper. Consequently, the contentions raised by the petitioner lack merit and do not warrant interference by this Court.

9. Accordingly, these criminal petitions are liable to be dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________ JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Date: 23.07.2025 mmr