Dismissed

Sreedharan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Dec 2013CRL RC(MD)/329/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an order granting interim custody of a seized vehicle to the registered owner (second respondent). The petitioner, a hirer under contract, claimed misapplication of funds by financing agencies. Finding no illegality, the High Court upheld the Magistrate's decision.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed; order of the Judicial Magistrate handing over interim custody to the second respondent remains in force.

Sreedharan Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.12.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.329 of 2013

Sreedharan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.State rep. By The Sub Inspector of Police, Pudukadai Police Station, Pudukadai,Kanyakumari District. (Crime No.260/2011)

¶11

2.T.Baby Marshall

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records C.M.P.No.953 of 2013 dated 26.2.2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate NO.II, Kulithurai and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate in C.M.P.No.953 of 2013 dated 26.2.2013 and consequently handover the interim custody of the vehicle TN 22/AM 5997 to the petitioner and allow this petition.

¶14

For Petitioner :Mr.Antony S.Prabahar For R1 :Mr.S.Prabha Government Advocate (Crl.side) For R2 :Mr.S.J.Chakaravathy for Eddy and Emboss

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The revision has been preferred under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithurai, dated 36.02.2013 in C.M.P.No.953 of 2013 handing over the interim custody of the vehicle Registration No.TN 22/AM 5997 to the second respondent.

¶17

2.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner purchased a mini Lorry by name Mahindra Road King bearing Registration No.TN-22/AM 5997 on 23.09.2010 from one Jeevanantham for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- through hire purchase scheme from one “Suganchand Bardia”. It is further submitted that the petitioner has paid initial amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid by the financier namely Suganchand Bardia. In the name transfer, the name of the petitioner was effected by the Regional Transport Officer, Marthandam on 23.09.2010.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

3.It is further submitted that the petitioner was regularly paying the monthly instalment at the rate of Rs.15,700/- to the financier and

¶20

¶21

due to unavoidable circumstances the petitioner was in default of the payment for some months. It is further submitted that on 11.07.2011 at 5 p.m., while the petitioner's driver by name Subin was driving the vehicle, three persons by name Rajan, Prem Anand and Kumar waylaid the vehicle and attacked the driver Subin with weapons and took away the vehicle from the driver for which, the driver Subin has given a complaint to the respondent police and the case was registered in Cr.No.260/2011 on 12.7.2011 under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 and 392 IPC. The vehicle was seized by the respondent police and the same was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithurai on 14.2.2013. In the mean time the petitioner came to understand that the financier Suganchand Bardia by misusing the petitioner's signature in the transfer forms which he signed during the time of availing the loan has illegally sold the vehicle to the second respondent. After the seizure of the vehicle, the petitioner as well as the second respondent filed a petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C for return of vehicle in C.M.P.No.953/2013 and C.M.P.No.910 of 2013 respectively.

¶22

4.The learned Magistrate allowed the petition in C.M.P.No.910 of 2013 filed by the second respondent and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner in C.M.P.No.953 of 2013 by common order dated 26.02.2013 against which, the present revision has been filed.

¶23

5.Admittedly, the RC book of the vehicle stands in the name of the second respondent and he has also produced the same before the Magistrate Court to prove his ownership.

¶24

6.Considering the documents viz., RC book, certificate of goods carriage book and copy of the Insurance Policy of the vehicle, the learned Magistrate thought fit to hand over the vehicle to the second respondent.

¶25

Considering the same, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithurai handing over interim custody of the vehicle to the second respondent herein does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and accordingly the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar (Crl.side)

¶28

/True Copy/

¶29

Sub- Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, KULITHURAI.

¶32

2.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUDUKADAI POLICE STATION, PUDUKADAI,KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶33

3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶34

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶35

- 1 CC to M/s.Eddy & Embboss, Advocate in SR.No.60444

¶36

Crl.R.C(MD)No.329 of 2013

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ gdr 03.01.2014 2p/5C

Sreedharan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreedharan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Ramakrishnan Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Gandhi Vs the Inspector of Police

S.M. Rajendra Raja Vs the Inspector of Police

L.Akila Loganathan Vs B.Meenakshi Sundaram

V.Poongodi Vs the Inspector of Police

Udhaya @ Udhayakumar Vs the Inspector of Police