Dismissed

S.Paramasivam v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Apr 2021CRL OP(MD)/3624/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the dismissal of a request for return of stolen jewels recovered as ingot. The Court held that since the validity of the jewelry shop owner's claim and the accused's confession require trial court examination, the petition was dismissed. However, the petitioner was allowed to seek return of recovered laptop, mobile, and watch separately.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner dismissed from this Cancer. Petitioner at liberty to approach lower court for return of laptop, mobile phone and wrist watch.

S.Paramasivam Vs The Inspector of Police — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3624 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Reserved on : 09.03.2021 Delivered on : 07.04.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R.THARANI

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3624 of 2021

S.Paramasivam

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State rep., through The Inspector of Police, Samayanallur Police Station, Madurai District. (crime No.93 of 2020)

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to set aside the order passed in Cr.R.P.No.70 of 2020 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Court, Madurai dated 25.01.2021 which was confirmed in Cr.M.P.No.1462 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti dated 21.09.2020.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Vakeeswaran For Respondent : Mr.S.Chandrasekar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This petition is filed to set aside the order passed in Cr.R.P.No.70 of 2020 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Court, Madurai, dated 25.01.2021, which was confirmed in Cr.M.P.No.1462 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti, dated 21.09.2020.

¶16

2.The petitioner is the defacto complainant in the case in Crime No.93 of 2020. 30 sovereigns of jewels, mobile phone and laptop were stolen from the petitioner. The petitioner has lodged a complaint with the respondent and the respondent police recovered the jewels, laptop, watch and mobile phone and produced them for custody before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai. The petitioner claiming himself as the owner of the properties filed a petition before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge for return of the property in Cr.R.C.No.70 of 2020 and the said petition was dismissed by the Court, by an order dated 25.01.2021. Aggrieved https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

1/3

¶18

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3624 of 2021

¶19

over the same, the petitioner preferred this Criminal Original Petition.

¶20

3.On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner is the defacto complainant. The jewels were recovered by the police as ingot namely 240 grams. Other claimant is a receiver of stolen property. The petitioner is entitled to receive the property, even though it is in the form of ingot. There are previous judgments of this Court, wherein ingots were returned to the parties and prayed the petition to be allowed.

¶21

4.On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the property is in the form of ingot. There is counter claim from a person, from whom the property was recovered. Since the property is in the form of ingot, the petitioner cannot claim ingot as his jewels, at this stage and prayed the petition to be dismissed.

¶22

5.It is seen that jewels of the petitioner was stolen by someone and a case was registered under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. It is stated that on the confession of the accused in that case, two ingots were recovered from a jewelry shop. It is seen that the jewelry shop owner filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.1454 of 2020 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti claiming the very same property. Even then the petitioner has not chosen to implead them as the party in this petition. The original jewels of the petitioner is not available now and only ingot was seized by the respondent police. Whether the accused is to be convicted, whether the confession statement given by the accused is valid and whether the jewelry shop owner is the receiver of stolen property cannot be decided at this stage before this forum. This factual matrix can be decided only by the trial Court, after the completion of the trial.

¶23

6.In the above circumstances, there is nothing sufficient enough to interfere in the order of the trial Court. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶24

7.There is no mentioning about the laptop, mobile phone and wrist watch in the order passed by the lower Court and hence, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the lower Court by filing a petition for return of those properties and on such petition, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, shall pass orders in accordance with law.

¶25

// True Copy //

¶26

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

¶27

2/3

¶28

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3624 of 2021

¶29

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶30

¶31

1.VI Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai.

¶32

2.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti.

¶33

3.The Inspector of Police, Samayanallur Police Station, Madurai District.

¶34

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

¶35

+1 CC to M/s.C.VAKEESWARAN, Advocate ( SR-15364[F] dated 07/04/2021 )

¶36

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3624 of 2021 07.04.2021

¶37

SSS(CO)

¶38

AS(12.05.2021) 3P 6C

¶39

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

¶40

3/3

S.Paramasivam v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Paramasivam v. The Inspector 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

Maragatham Vs Banumathi

Jose @ Thangajose Vs The Executive Magistrate No.Ii Cum Tahsildar

Mani @ Manikandan @ Pramuthu Manikandan Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Murugeshwari Vs The Inspector of Police

The District Revenue Officer Vs M/s.Natasha Agro Foods registered Firm

A.Mathan Kumar, Vs S.Priya @ Sunanatha Priya