Allowed

M.Yuvaraj v. State Rep. by

Madras HC23 Nov 2015CRL RC/963/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal revision against an order rendered by a Judicial Magistrate which rejected an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for return of property, directing the lower court to dispose of the matter on merits after hearing both parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 05.08.2015 set aside; trial court directed to pass orders on merits after hearing both parties.

M.Yuvaraj Vs State Rep. by — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE: 23.11.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.963 of 2015

¶6

M.Yuvaraj ...Petitioner

¶7

vs.
1. The State Rep. By
Inspector of Police
J-11, Kannagi Nagar Police Station
Adayar, Chennai
(Crime No.1807 of 2015)
2. Mr.Jaganathan ...Respondents
Criminal Revision filed u/s.397 & 401 Cr.P.C. to set aside
the order dated 05.08.2015 in C.M.P.SR.No.6699 of 2015 in Crime
No.1807 of 2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Ramu
For Respondents : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj
Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) for R1
O R D E R

¶9

This petition challenges the return of the petition moved under Section 451 Cr.P.C in C.M.P.SR.No.6699 of 2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.

¶10

In refusing to consider such petition, the Court below, on the consideration that an earlier application for return of property moved in C.M.P.No.4727 of 2015 was partly allowed by it on 26.06.2015, has considered the further application for return of property not maintainable. In partly allowing C.M.P.No.4727 of 2015, the Court below has taken into consideration the position that while some of the articles, return of which was sought, tallied with the recoveries made, others did not. In

¶11

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

¶12

answering the return of C.M.A.SR.No.6699 of 2015, petitioner has informed that a further statement stands recorded and given the changed circumstance, the Court could entertain a further petition for return of property.

¶13

Heard both parties and perused the records.

¶14

When on an earlier occasion an application for return of property has been partly rejected in respect of certain properties and a further statement recorded from the complainant justifies the return of further properties to him, the Court below ought to have considered the application in C.M.P.SR.No.6699 of 2015, after hearing the respondent on the matter, on merits.

¶15

Accordingly, this revision shall stand allowed and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur 05.08.2015 passed in C.M.P.SR.No.6699 of 2015 in Crime No.1807 of 2015 on 05.08.2015 shall stand set aside. The trial Court is directed to number C.M.P.SR.No.6699 of 2015 and after hearing both petitioner and respondent, pass orders on merits.

¶16

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gpa To

¶17

The Judicial Magistrate Alandur, Chennai.

¶18

1 CC to Mr.L.Ramu, Advocate SR.No. 63331

¶19

Crl.R.C.No.963 of 2015 AK (CO) PSI (26.11.2015)

¶20

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

M.Yuvaraj v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Yuvaraj v. State Rep. by

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

H.M. Abdul Jaleel Vs Ayyappan

K.v.Muthusamy Vs the State Rep. by Its

Mukesh Vs Koushalya

H.Farook Maricar Vs the Inspector of Police

Selvi.M.Manimekalai Vs Inspector of Police (L&O)

M.Jeevakrishnankumar Vs the State Rep by