Partly allowed

Mrs.P.Meenakumari, v. the Insepctor of Police

Madras HC13 Jul 2017CRL RC/511/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against a Magistrate's order dismissing a petition for return of seized documents, the High Court directed the return of essential identity documents like passport, driving license, and Aadhar card to the petitioner on security, while sustaining the seizure of other items, and mandated verification of document ownership.

What did the court decide?

The court below to return Driving License, Original Passport, Aadhar Card, Voter ID, Horoscope, and EB card to the petitioner upon verification and security bond; other seized documents to remain in p

Mrs.P.Meenakumari, Vs the Insepctor of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.07.2017

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶5

CRL. REVISION CASE No.511 of 2017

¶6

P.Meena kumari ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1. The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Branch. Coimbatore Crime No.354 of 2015 2. Karthick 3. Shanmugadurai ... Respondents Prayer: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.3494 of 2016 dated 20.01.2017 and to pass an order directing the respondent to return the above said documents seized in Crime No.354 of 2015.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.T.K.Rajasekaran For Respondents : Mr. R.Sekar (for R1) Government Advocate (Crl. side)

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This Criminal Revision case has been filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Coimbatore in Crl. M.P.No.3494 of 2016, dated 20.01.2017.

¶11

By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under sections 454 and 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code (In short “the code”).

¶12

Mr. T.K.Rajasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that number of documents were seized by the respondent police from the premises of the petitioner and out of the said documents, at least few important documents such as Passport, Driving License, Pan Card and Voter ID Card of the

¶13

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

¶14

petitioner, which are in no way connected with the case, can be returned.

¶15

The learned counsel further submits that in respect of these documents, since the petitioner is the owner of those documents, there cannot be any impediment for the court below to grant interim custody of these documents and without these documents, the day today life of the petitioner would be highly affected, as these documents are the identity of the petitioner as citizen of this country.

¶16

Per contra, Mr. R.Sekar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the first respondent has relied upon Paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent and the same is extracted hereunder:

¶17

"9. It is submitted that meantime, the petitioner/accused (A-2) filed a petition under sections 454 & 457 Cr.Pc. before the trial court i.e. Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Coimbatore for return of the property vide C.M.P.No.3494 of 2016 and the same was dismissed on 20.1.2017 on the following ground:

¶18

,t;tHf;fpd; g[yd; tprhuidapd; nghJ ifg;gw;wg;gl;Ls;s nkw;go Mtz';fs; ,t;tHf;fpd; tprhuidapd; nghJ nkw;go vjpupapd; kPjhd Fw;wr;rhl;il epU::gpf;f njitahd rhd;W bghUl;fshf gad;gLj;j

¶19

jFe;jjhft[k; cs;sJ/ nkw;go Mtz';fs; kDjhuuplkpUe;J ifg;gw;wg;gl;lJ vd;gij jtpu kDjhuupd; bgaupYs;s gh!;nghu;l;. Xl;Leu; cupkk; nghd;w kDjhuupd; milahs Mtz';fs; jtpu kw;w Mtz';fSk; kDjhuUf;F vt;tifapy; rk;ge;jg;gl;lJ vd;gjw;F kDjhuu; jug;gpy; tpsf;fnkh my;yJ mjw;fhd ntW Mtz';fnsh jhf;fy; bra;ag;gltpy;iy/ nkw;go tHf;fpd; tprhuidapd; nghJ jhd; nkw;go tHf;F brhj;Jf;fSf;Fk; kDjhuUf;Fk; vt;tifapy; rk;ge;jk; vd;gJk; mjd; cz;ikahd cupikahsu;fs; ahu; vd;gJk; bjupatUk;/ vdnt ,k;kDthdJ jw;nghija N:H;epiyapy; mDkjpf;fjf;fjy;y vd;nw jPu;khdpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ ,Wjpapy; ,k;kDthdJ js;Sgo bra;J cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/"

¶20

By relying upon the said averments made in the counter affidavit, the learned Government Advocate would submit that

¶21

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

¶22

except few documents such as Passport, Driving License etc., as has been rightly held by the lower court in the order impugned, all the other documents are not only required to prove the case of the prosecution against the petitioner, but also there is no proof to show that all other documents are belonging to the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate would submit that this being the position, the petitioner again seeks all those documents, which were seized by the first respondent for the purpose of proving that charges framed against her.

¶23

The Government Advocate would also submit that the rejection order passed by the court below, which is impugned herein requires no interference.

¶24

I have considered the submissions of both sides. As has been pointed out by the learned Government Advocate those documents, which were seized from the petitioner, may be required for the prosecution to prove the case against the petitioner during the trial. Moreover, as has been pointed out by the learned Judge of the Court below the petitioner has no proof to show that those documents are belonging to the petitioner.

¶25

However, the learned Judge in the impugned order has observed that except the Passport and Driving License and some other documents, which stand in the name of the petitioner, no other documents is belonging to the petitioner and to that effect, no proof had been filed before the court below.

¶26

On considering the above said aspects, this court feels that except those important personal documents such as Driving License, Passport, Adhar Card, Voter ID Card, the petitioner cannot be permitted to have interim custody in respect of other documents. Therefore, the rejection of the court below, which is impugned herein, is fully justifiable.

¶27

However, so far as the personal documents such as Driving License, Passport etc., those documents can be returned to the petitioner for the time being with conditions.

¶28

In such view of the matter, the following order is passed in this revision case:

¶29

(i) The court below shall return the following documents to the petitioner by getting proper security bond.

¶30

Driving License

¶31

Original Passport of Meenakumari (No.J1470818-1)

¶32

Adhaar Card No. 251006617951

¶33

Voter ID Card No.KL/14/082/432640

¶34

Horoscope of Meena kumari.

¶35

EB payment card

¶36

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

¶37

The court below before passing the order to return the above said documents, shall verify the documents, as to whether they stand in the name of the petitioner.

¶38

In so far as the document of passport is concerned, the lower court can also impose further conditions to ensure the presence of the petitioner in the country, as the trial is going on, till the trial is completed. Except the aforesaid documents, in respect of all other documents as well as properties, the order of the lower court, which is impugned herein, is sustained.

¶39

Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed with the above terms.

¶40

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rli/mm
To
The learned Judicial Magistrate-II,
Coimbatore.
+1 cc to Mr.M.Jaikumar Advocate sr 48913
Crl.R.C.No.511 of 2017
gp(co)
aa01/08/2017

¶41

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

Mrs.P.Meenakumari, v. the Insepctor of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.P.Meenakumari, v. the Insepctor 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

Shanmugasundaram Vs S.Mani

M/S.Star India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S.Unilink Vision Pvt.Ltd

R.Rajesh, Aged 35 Years, Vs Kalaiyarasi, Aged 28 Years

Ramasamy, M/a 65 Years, Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate

K.VENKAT,52 Yrs, Vs T. Nebaraj Nelson

V.Sundarraj, Age 61 Years Vs Venmathi