Criminal Revision filed against an order rejecting the petition for return of a vehicle seized in a cheating case. The High Court held that returning the vehicle might lead to its sale and hamper the trial, finding the lower court's order well-founded and dismissing the revision.
Petition for return of property dismissed; Criminal Revision Case dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:11.01.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
Crl.R.C.No.73 of 2019
Boopathi
...Petitioner/Accused vs.
The State, rep.by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Salem Town Police Campus, Salem-1
...Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order passed in C.M.P.No.4983 of 2018 in Crime No.16 of 2018, dated 25.10.2018, by the Judicial Magistrate No.5, Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Nagarathinam
For Respondent : Mr.G.Harihara Arun Soma Sankar
Government Advocate
ORDER
The above Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Salem, in Crl.M.P.No.4983 of 2018 in Crime No.16 of 2018, rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner herein for return of property under Section 451 of Crl.P.C.
2.The learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the petition on the ground that the property, viz., Volvo Car bearing Registration NO.TN-90-C-0003 was purchased from the money obtained from the defacto complainant for the purpose of real estate transaction. Since the petitioner/accused himself has confessed that the car had been purchased from the money taken from the defacto complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate felt that it was against the interest of the trial to return the property, pending finalisation of the criminal case.
3.According to the prosecution, the revision petitioner had cheated an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and the investigation is still pending.
4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that if the vehicle is returned, the same may be sold by the petitioner/accused
and it will certainly hamper the progress of the trial. In the said circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition. Therefore this Court finds that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is well founded and does not suffer from any infirmity. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Msk
To
Crl.R.C.No.73 of 2019
CA(CO)
rrs 20/02/2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Trial Magistrate rightly rejected the petition for return of property pending the finalisation of the criminal case.
Whether the present Criminal Revision Case ought to be allowed as the impugned order is well-founded.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Boopathi
The State, rep.by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch
V. Parmathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
