Disposed

Manikandan, Aged 32 Yrs v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC19 Sept 2017CRL OP/6348/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner sought directions to produce a seized vehicle before the Judicial Magistrate. The court granted liberty for the petitioner to approach the Motor Vehicle Inspector for the return of the vehicle, with the Inspector ordered to return it within two days upon receipt of the request.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to approach Motor Vehicle Inspector to seek return of seized vehicle within two days.

Manikandan, Aged 32 Yrs Vs the Superintendent of Police — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19.09.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.6348 of 2017
P. Manikandan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Thirunallar,
Karaikal, Puducherry State.
2. The Sub Inspector of Police,
Traffic Police Station,
Karaikal, Puducherry State .. Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to issue appropriate direction, directing the second respondent to produce the caught hold alleged vehicle PY 02 H 5451 by issue of police notice No. 22613, dated 06.02.2017 before the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Adiapadam for K.Tamilarasan

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.M.R.Thangavel

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

¶12

Additional Public Prosecutor. ORDER

¶13

This petition is filed seeking to issue appropriate directions, directing the second respondent to produce the caught hold alleged vehicle PY 02 H 5451 by issue of police notice No. 22613, dated 06.02.2017 before the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal.

¶14

was seized by the respondent police, has been handed over to the

¶15

Motor Vehicle Inspector, Karaikal, Puducherry.

¶16

Today when the matter was called the learned

¶17

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submitted that since they have already handed over the vehicle to the Motor Vehicle Inspector, the petitioner may be permitted to approach the concerned Motor Vehicle Inspector seeking return of

¶18

the vehicle and that they have no objection for return of the vehicle.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has

¶20

also submitted that they are ready and willing to pay necessary

¶21

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶22

¶23

charges and execute such affidavits/documents undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required for the purpose of investigation.

¶24

Recording the submission made by the learned

¶25

Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Karikal, Puducherry seeking return of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.PY 02 H 5421 seized by the police notice No. 22613 dated 06.02.2017. On receipt of such request seeking return of vehicle, the Motor vehicle Inspector, Karaikal, Puducherry shall forthwith return the same on such condition as he may deem fit and necessary. Such an exercise shall

¶26

be completed within 2 days from the date of receipt of the request from the petitioner.

¶27

This Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly.

¶28

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No

¶29

aav/mrp

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.S.RAMESH.J,

aav/mrp

To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Offfice of the Superintendent of Police,
Thirunallar,
Karaikal, Puducherry State.
2. The Sub Inspector of Police,
Traffic Police Station,
Karaikal, Puducherry State
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.6348 of 2017

¶36

http://www.judis.nic.in

Manikandan, Aged 32 Yrs v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan, Aged 32 Yrs v. the Superintendent 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

P.Chandrasekaran, Aged 70 Yrs, Vs the Insepctor of Police

S.Sambandam Vs The Commissioner of Police

Mrs.J.Parimala, Vs The Principal Secretary

B.S.Lavanya, Vs a.Jenix Dev Singh

S.Selvaraj Vs the Commissioner of Police

R.Padma Vs the Inspector of Police