Disposed

B.Hariprasad, v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Jan 2020WP/1385/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus to recover a lorry seized by the 3rd respondent amidst conflicting FIRs. The court noted the vehicle was handed over to a Judicial Magistrate for the pending FIR. The court disposed of the petition directing the petitioner to seek remedy in that Court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to seek remedy for return of seized lorry before the Judicial Magistrate where the primary FIR is pending.

B.Hariprasad, Vs The Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 23.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

W.P.No.1385 of 2020

¶6

B.Hariprasad .. Petitioner

¶7

..Vs..
1. The Inspector of Police,
Singanallur Police Station,
Coimbatore.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Civil Supplies CID,
Krishnagiri.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Krishnagiri District. ..Respondents

¶8

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3^rd respondent herein to produce the custody of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN39 AJ 4519, Engine No.XFH 390928, Chasis NO.XFR232925 subject matter of FIR in Crime No.894 of 2019 dated 17.06.2019 on the file of the 1^st respondent herein, used with fake Registration No.TN 23 P 9699 in the subject matter of investigation under FIR No.124 of 2019 dated 22.11.2019 on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein, to the 1^st respondent within a time frame as may be stipulated by this Court.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Santhanaraman

¶10

The writ petition has been filed in the nature of mandamus, seeking direction to the 3^rd respondent namely the District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri District to produce the custody of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN39 AJ 4519, Engine No.XFH 390928, Chasis NO.XFR232925 which is the subject matter of FIR in Crime No.894 of 2019 dated 17.06.2019, registered by the 1^st respondent namely the Inspector of Police, Singanallur Police Station, Coimbatore under Section 379 of I.P.C.

¶11

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

¶12

The grievance of the petitioner is that a lorry bearing registration No.TN39 AJ 4519 had been stolen and in this connection he had lodged a complaint before the 1^st respondent namely the Inspector of Police, Singanallur Police Station, Coimbatore wherein an FIR in Crime No.894 of 2019 had been registered under Section 379 of I.P.C..

¶13

In the meanwhile, the said lorry appears to have been seized by the 3^rd respondent, in view of the fact that it had been used for smuggling of PDS rice but with registration No.TN23 P 9699 and in this connection, FIR in crime No.124 of 2019 had been registered under Section 7 (1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 r/w. Rule 6 (4) of Tamil Nadu Schedule Commodities (RDCS) Order 1982 by the 2^nd respondent namely the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Krishnagiri .

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the registration number had been changed without the knowledge of the petitioner and the lorry was used for smuggling of Rice. The writ petitioner had therefore filed the present writ petition.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents produced a letter of the 3^rd respondent dated 08.01.2020 in Na.Ka.No.29749/2019/F6 whereby it had been stated that the lorry had been handed over and is in the custody of the Judicial Magistrate No III, Coimbatore wherein the FIR No.894 of 2019 is pending.

¶16

The petitioner will necessarily has to workout his remedy for return of the seized vehicle before the said Court in the manner known to law.

¶17

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶18

vum

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

The Inspector of Police, Singanallur Police Station, Coimbatore.

¶22

The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Krishnagiri.

¶23

The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri District.

¶24

+1cc to Mr.M.Santhanaraman , Advocate SR.No. 4655
+1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.No. 5710
W.P.No.1385 of 2020
A.SK(24/02/2020)

¶25

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

B.Hariprasad, v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Hariprasad, v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Dhanaraj Vs The Principal Secretary

Assembly of God Church, Vs The District Collector

Gunasekaran Vs The Assistant Commissioner

E.Muruvayee Vs The District Collector

Shokkath Ali Vs The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

Ariyalur Harigopal Balaji Vs Union of India