Authority: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 10 November 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner/Accused: M/s Gayathri Infra, a registered partnership firm represented by Managing Partners Sri Kalidindi Devi and Sri Rama Raju, residing at D/No 4-47-12/3, Lawson's Bay Colony, Visakhapatnam.
  • Respondents/Complainants: 1) The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor, ACB, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati; 2) Kotaru Eswara Rao, Senior Assistant, KGH Visakhapatnam; 3) Smt. Talatam RamLakshmi.
  • Petition Details: Criminal Petition No. 4524/2023 filed under Sections 437, 438, 439, 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 528 of the BNSS. The petitioner seeks quash of the order dated 01.02.2023 passed in Crl.M.P. No.232 of 2020 and Crl.M.P. No.798 of 2019 in Crime No.13/RCA‑ACB‑VSP/2018, and also seeks permission to proceed with construction and raise the attachment pending disposal of the main quash petition.
  • Background: The petitioner entered into a development agreement with flat owners of Prince Apartment (Door No.16‑1‑16/C) to reconstruct a 40‑year‑old, dilapidated building situated opposite the sea. The petitioner invested Rs.25,00,000 for execution of the agreement. The flat in question is in the name of Respondent No.3 (sister‑in‑law of the main accused), who is not a family member under the law. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had no title over the property and therefore could not seek raising of attachment.
  • Counsel: For petitioner – P. Rajasekhar; for respondents – S. Syam Sundar Rao, Special Public Prosecutor, ACB.

Court’s Reasoning

  • The trial court erred by treating the petitioner merely as a third party and refusing to examine his claim of interest in the attached property.
  • Section 4(4) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 permits any person claiming an interest in attached property to raise an objection before the District Judge, irrespective of notice.
  • Section 5(2) mandates the District Judge to investigate such objections using civil procedure powers, and Section 5(3) requires an appropriate order after investigation.
  • The combined reading of Sections 4(4) and 5 makes it clear that a third‑party claimant cannot be denied the opportunity to object; the claim must be examined on the basis of pleadings, documents, and evidence.
  • The lower court failed to conduct any such investigation, merely dismissing the petition at the threshold, which is a procedural defect, not merely an error of appreciation.
  • While acknowledging the availability of an appeal under Section 11 of the Ordinance, the Court held that the defect was a failure to exercise jurisdiction, warranting interference under its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
  • The Court clarified that it is not expressing any view on the genuineness of the petitioner’s claim or the validity of his documents; those matters are for the trial court to determine after a proper enquiry.

Final Outcome

  • The Criminal Petition No.4524 of 2023 is allowed, quashing the order dated 01.02.2023 passed in Crl.M.P. No.232 of 2020 and Crl.M.P. No.798 of 2019 in Crime No.13/RCA‑ACB‑VSP/2018.
  • The matter is remitted to the III Additional District Judge‑cum‑Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam, for fresh consideration in accordance with Sections 4(4) and 5 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944.
  • The trial court shall give an opportunity to the petitioner, the prosecution, and other parties to place their claims and supporting material on record, conduct an enquiry as per Section 5(2), and pass an appropriate order on merits.
  • The attachment on the property continues to operate until the competent court passes a new order.
  • All pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.

Topics: Legal Procedure, Attachment Order, Criminal Law