KOTHA KOMURELLI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/A1 under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the order dated 16.5.2015 in Crl. RP No. 33 of 2015 in Crl. MP No. 354 of 2015 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal at Mahabubabad. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor (Telangana) for the State.

(2.) The petitioner is A1 in Crime No. 215 of 2014 registered for the offence punishable under Ss. 420, 364 -A, 386, 496, 327 read with 34 IPC of Narasimhulapet Police Station, Warangal District, wherein Maruti A1 to Car bearing No. TS 03 EC 2829 of the petitioner was seized as part of the property used for commission of the crime supra in abducting a child.

(3.) The petitioner herein filed Crl. MP No. 354 of 2015 in the above said crime for interim custody of the said vehicle and the learned Magistrate by impugned order dated 16.3.2015 after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in opposing the same with reference to counter dismissed the petition saying that A2 to A4 are involved in similar crimes viz., Crime No. 45 of 2013 of Thorrur Police Station under Ss. 341, 326 read with 34 I.P.C., CC No. 214 of 2013 (Crime No. 123 of 2012 of Narsimhulapet Police Station) under Ss. 452, 506, 323, 290 read with 34 I.P.C., CC No. 493 of 2012 (Crime No. 244 of 2013) under Ss. 302 and 506 I.P.C. PRC No. 25 of 2014 (Crime No. 199 of 2014 of Narsimhulapet Police Station) under Ss. 447, 379 read with 34 I.P.C., so far as A2 is concerned; and so far as A4 is concerned Crime No. 33 of 2014 of Narsimhulapet Police Station, CC No. 129 of 2014 and Crime No. 199 of 2014 and it is observed that the petitioner/A1 and other accused of crime purchased the car by extracting money from the de facto complainant and registered it on the name of the 1st petitioner and that they are professional offenders and further observing that the petitioner did not disclose in his said application for interim custody of the vehicle standing in his own name, all the above facts and thereby there are no bona fides and the investigation is in progress and it is not a fit case to order for interim custody of the vehicle. Impugning the same, Crl. RP No. 33 of 2015 was filed before VI Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal at Mahabubabad. By order dated 16.5.2015, the learned Sessions Judge also dismissed with an observation that the vehicle in question was used by the accused in committing the offences, which are serious in nature and the revision petitioner was also one of the accused in the said offences, thereby not inclined to grant interim custody of the vehicle. Impugning the same, the present criminal petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., is filed to quash the impugned order to prevent the abuse of process and to pass any order to sub -serve the ends of justice.