ORDER :- This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash further proceedings against the petitioners in pursuance of the FIR in Cr.No.53 of 2007, on the file of Kuppam Police Station. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the records. 3. According to the petitioners, first petitioner is owner of the property viz., cash of Rs.60,000/- and 13 ingots of silver metal weighing 22.809 kgs, seized from second petitioner, and cash of Rs.55,000/and 15 silver ingots weighing 27.566 kgs, seized from the possession of third petitioner, and that petitioners 2 and 3 being the employees of the first petitioner were carrying them with necessary transport vouchers issued by the first petitioner and that they were illegally seized from their possession by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuppam on 17.5.2007 at 3.45 p.m. Though more than five months have elapsed since the seizure of the property from the possession of petitioners 2 and 3 and registration of the case in Cr. No.53 of 2007 under Sections 41(1)(a) and 102 Cr.P.C., the police have not filed final report in the matter till now. On the other hand, the report submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police to the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kuppam on 10.8.2007 regarding the ownership of the property shows that as per the investigation, first petitioner herein A.J. Shafiuddin is owner of the seized property. Petitioners! A.2 and A.3 were apprehended and the property was seized from their possession on mere apprehension. Since it is not disputed and is also borne out by the investigation that first petitioner herein is owner of the said property and petitioners/A.2 and A.3 were carrying the said property on the instructions of first petitioner, covered by the necessary vouchers and other transport documents and further the investigation has not disclosed commission of any specific offence by any of the petitioners, further proceedings against them in pursuance of F.LR. in Cr.No.53 of 2007 are held not sustainable. 4. In a decision in Kilaparthi Suri Appa Rao v. State of A.P. Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad and another, 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 900 (AP) = 2004 (2) ALT (Crl.) 333 (AP), this Court held that registration of F.I.R. by the police in connection with seizure of property under Section 102 Cr. 4. In a decision in Kilaparthi Suri Appa Rao v. State of A.P. Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad and another, 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 900 (AP) = 2004 (2) ALT (Crl.) 333 (AP), this Court held that registration of F.I.R. by the police in connection with seizure of property under Section 102 Cr. P.C., is improper and unwarranted, because question of registering an F.I.R. arises only when information relating to cognizable offence is given to the Officer-in-charge of Police Station. It was further held that suspicion of a property being stolen per se does not amount to commission of a cognizance offence. In the above case also seizure was effected more than four months prior to filing of the criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and it was not even alleged that the police had any information or complaint from anyone is respect of the said property and so prima facie there was no cognizable offence with regard to the seized property and when there is no cognizable offence, question of registering the F.I.R. does not arise. In the present case also, no report or complaint is received by the police from anyone in respect of the seized property and, on the other hand, the investigation discloses that the first petitioner is owner of the seized property and petitioners 2 and 3 were his employees and they were carrying the same on the instructions of the first petitioner, duly on the transport vouchers and other documents and if that is so, question of continuing further proceedings against the petitioners does not arise, especially when there is no allegation of commission of any cognizable offence against any of the petitioners with respect to subject property . 5. In the circumstances, further proceedings in pursuance of the FIR in Cr.No.53 of 2007, are held not sustainable and they are liable to be quashed. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and further proceedings against the petitioners in pursuance of the FIR in Cr.No.53 of 2007, on the file of Kuppam Police Station, are hereby quashed.