Allowed

Maridurai v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 Dec 2017CRL RC(MD)/921/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed the revision against an order dismissing a petition for custody of a seized vehicle without hearing. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh disposal on merits after hearing both parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 17.08.2017 in Crl.M.P.No.3894 of 2017 set aside and matter remanded to District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri for fresh disposal on merits.

Maridurai Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.12.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BASHEER AHAMED

¶6

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.921 of 2017

Maridurai

... Petitioner

Vs.

State through the The Sub Inspector of Police, Vasudevanallur Police Station, Tiruneveli District. (In Crime No.154 of 2017) ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: The Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri in Crl.M.P.No.3894 of 2017 in Crime No.154 of 2017 dated 17.08.2017 dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C.and allow this petition to grant custody of vehicle Tractor bearing registration No.TN 76 B 1509 in P.R.No.294 of 2017 which was seized by the respondent Police in Crime No.154 of 2017 to the custody of the petitioner pending investigation allowing this revision petition.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthil Sankaranathakumar For Respondent : Mr.C.Mayilvaha Rajendran, APP

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The Criminal Revision Case is filed to call for the records pertaining to the order 17.08.2017 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3894 of 2017 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C. and to grant the custody of the Tractor bearing registration No.TN 76 / B 1509 in P.R.No.294 of 2017 which was seized by the respondent Police in Crime No.154 of 2017 to the custody of the petitioner.

¶15

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner is present. Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for the respondent Police. Heard both sides. By consent of parties, this Criminal Revision case is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶16

3.The petitioner claims ownership of a Tractor bearing registration No.TN 76 / B 1509 in P.R.No.294 of 2017 which was seized and remanded to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri in P.R.No.290 of 2017. The petitioner filed a petition in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Crl.M.P.No.3894 of 2017 seeking interim custody of the said vehicle and the said petition was dismissed by the court below on 17.08.2017

¶17

¶18

without hearing the arguments on either side. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by filing the present Criminal Revision Case.

¶19

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without hearing the parties to the proceedings the impugned order was passed.

¶20

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would concede that the matter may be remanded to the court below for fresh disposal on merits after hearing both parties.

¶21

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that without hearing the parties on either side, the impugned order was passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri in Crl.M.P.No.3894 of 2017 on 17.08.2017. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision case is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 17.08.2017 in Crl.M.P.No.3894 of 2017 by remitting the matter back to the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri for fresh disposal on merits and in accordance with law, after providing sufficient opportunity to both parties.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri.

¶28

2.Do through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli District

¶29

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Vasudevanallur Police Station, Tiruneveli District.

¶30

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai

¶31

+One cc to Mr.S.Senthil Sankaranathakumar, Advocate, SR.No.92412

¶32

nbj

¶33

RL/6C/2P/SV/MMS/SAR3/2/2/2018

¶34

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

¶35

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.921 of 2017 12/12/2017

Maridurai v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maridurai v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Ramarathinam Vs the Inspector of Police

Duraimanickam Vs the Inspector of Police

Thiagarajar Mills (P) Ltd. Vs M.Krishnamoorthy

S. Selvan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

K. Udayakumar Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Jothilakshmi Vs Jeganathan