Dismissed

M.Vadivel v. the State Rep by

Madras HC6 Jan 2021CRL RC/1280/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal revision petition seeking interim custody of a seized vehicle and quashing of an order refusing it. The magistrate dismissed an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. filed during investigation. The revision court held that releasing the vehicle is discretionary and, given the serious allegations, dismissed the petition but allowed the petitioner to re-file after the charge sheet

What did the court decide?

Relief sought for interim custody of the seized vehicle and setting aside of the impugned order was dismissed with liberty to approach the trial court after filing of the charge sheet.

M.Vadivel Vs the State Rep by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.01.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.1280 of 2020

¶6

M.Vadivel S/o.Murugan ... Petitioner

¶7

.Vs.

¶8

The State rep.by Forest Range Officer, Sathanoor Dam FRO, Tirvannamalai District. W.O.R.L.No.4/2020 ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.647 of 2020 in W.O.R.L.No.4/2020, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Chengam, Tiruvannamalai District to set aside the same and to issue a direction to the respondent to grant interim custody of Hero Honda Splendour Plus Drum vehicle bearing Registration number is TN83A5863 in connection with W.O.R.L.No.4 of 2020 and C.P.No.32 of 2020 to the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.P.S.Kothandaram For Respondent : Mr.A.Madhan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ***** O R D E R

¶11

The case was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 21 (d), (h) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, and Section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Section 25(1)(a),(b) of Arms Act in W.O.R.L.No.4 of 2020.

¶12

2. During the investigation, the vehicle was seized and kept under custody of the respondent. During the pendency of the investigation, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chengam, Tiruvannamalai District under Section 451 Cr.P.C. to return the vehicle. The learned Magistrate after giving opportunity to the petitioner dismissed the petition. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this revision.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he

¶14

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

¶15

is not involved in any offence and also the vehicle has wrongly been seized and the vehicle is kept in the open space and there is possibility of deterioration and any condition may be imposed subject to which the vehicle may be returned and as and when necessary he is ready to produce the vehicle.

¶16

4. Heard and perused the records.

¶17

5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that investigation is in preliminary stage and charge sheet not yet filed. The order passed by the Magistrate does not warrant interference.

¶18

6. Admittedly, the case was registered against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 21 (d), (h) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, and Section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Section 25(1)(a),(b) of Arms Act in W.O.R.L.No.4 of 2020 and during the investigation, they also seized the vehicle and the petitioner filed the petition. Since the investigation is in preliminary stage and charge sheet is not yet filed. During the investigation, the release of the vehicle is purely discretionary power of the Court. Considering the serious nature of the allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner.

¶19

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move the trial Court after filing of charge sheet. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Forest Range Officer, Sathanoor Dam FRO, Tirvannamalai District. 2. The Judicial Magistrate, Chengam, Tiruvannamalai District. +1cc to Mr.P.S.Kothandaraman, Advocate, S.R.No.413

¶20

Crl.R.C.No.1280 of 2020 rr ii (27/01/2021)

¶21

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

M.Vadivel v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Vadivel v. the State Rep by

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

S.Muthuvel Vs the Executive Magistrate-Cum-

Mohamad Fazludin Iqbal Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

B.Vishwalingam Vs Soundari

S.Shalini Vs G.Ganesh

D.Sureshkumarkochar Vs the State

Sivaji @ Nazeer Vs State Rep.by