Allowed

Kaleeswaran v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Apr 2021CRL RC(MD)/686/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision petition seeking release of a seized vehicle. The Court ordered the return of the vehicle to the petitioner on interim custody subject to conditions, confiscated the Original Registration Certificate, and directed registration of a private complaint under the MMDR Act before the Special Court.

What did the court decide?

Directions to return vehicle on interim custody subject to bond and R/C deposit; direction to initiate prosecution under MMDR Act.

Kaleeswaran Vs The Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.686 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved On : 17.03.2021 Delivered On : 20.04.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI Crl. R.C.(MD)No.686 of 2020

¶4

Kaleeswaran .. Petitioner/3^rd party Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police, Poovanthi Police Station, Sivagangai District - 630611. (In Crime No:16 of 2018) .. Respondent/Complainant

¶5

Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Court II, Sivagangai in Cr.M.P.No.3579 of 2020 dated 14.10.2020 in C.C.No.524 of 2019, and consequently release the petitioner's vehicle No.TN-67-A-1747 within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.

¶6

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthil kumar For Respondent : Mrs.S.Bharathi Government Advocate (Crl.

¶7

Side)

¶8

ORDER

¶9

This petition has been filed to set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.3579 of 2020 dated 14.10.2020, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai.

¶10

2.The respondent seized a lorry bearing Registration No.TN67-A-1747 and produced the property before the Court. Subsequently, the petitioner claiming himself as the owner of the lorry, has approached the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai, by filing a petition for return of the lorry and the learned Judge dismissed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.3579 of 2020 dated 14.10.2020. Against which, the petitioner has preferred the Criminal Revision Case.

¶11

3.On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. If the vehicle is kept in the open, the value of the vehicle will be deteriorated by the exposure to the climatic condition and prayed the vehicle to be returned to the petitioner.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.In support of his contention, the judgment of this Court

¶13

1 / 3

¶14

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.686 of 2020

¶15

in the case of Sengol v. The State in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14409 of 2011 is cited.

¶16

5.On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the case against the petitioner is sand theft and that the offence alleged is serious in nature. The petitioner has been illegally carrying out mining for his personal gain. There is possibility for the petitioner to alter or change the physical structure of the alleged vehicle and also indulge in similar criminal activities and prayed the petition to be dismissed.

¶17

6.The vehicle was seized on 10.02.2018 and is kept in open space for the past two years and that the vehicle will become useless by the exposure to climatic conditions.

¶18

7.In view of the same, the learned Judge is directed to return the vehicle to the petitioner for interim custody subject to the confiscation proceedings on the following conditions:

¶19

(i)The petitioner shall deposit the original Registration Certificate of the vehicle with the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai ;

¶20

(ii)The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the credit of Crime No.16 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order ;

¶21

(iii)The petitioner is directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai;

¶22

(iv)The petitioner shall not alienate and shall not make any alteration in the vehicle ;

¶23

(v)The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the Court and before the respondent as and when required and this order is subject to the final order to be passed in the confiscation proceedings ; (vi)If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, this order automatically stands cancelled.

¶24

8.It is seen that the case was registered only under Sections 379 and 427 of IPC and not under MMDR Act. In view of the above, the District Collector is directed to depute a Revenue officials not below the rank of Tahsildar to file a private complaint before the Special Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such complaint, the respondent is directed to alter the charge within a period of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ one month from the date of filing of the private complaint. The

¶25

2 / 3

¶26

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.686 of 2020

¶27

concerned Special Court is directed to club both the police case and the private complaint together and to take the case on file under the MMDR Act and to dispose the same in accordance with law.

¶28

9.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The Registry is directed to send the copy of the order immediately to the Special Court and the concerned District Collector and to the concerned Judicial Magistrate.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar (Cs-I)

¶31

// True Copy //

¶32

/ /2021

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶34

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.

¶35

¶36

1.The Judge, Special Court MMDr ACT Sivagangai Dsitrict.

¶37

2.The District Collector, Sivagangai.

¶38

3.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai.

¶39

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

¶40

Copy to

¶41

The Inspector of Police, Poovanthi Police Station Sivagangai District.

¶42

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.686 of 2020 20.04.2021

¶43

SRK(CO)

¶44

KB(30.04.2021) 3P 6C

¶45

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

¶46

3 / 3

Kaleeswaran v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaleeswaran 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.Ravichandran Vs Venkatesan

T.Rajathi Vs T.N.Ravi

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs D.Raju

RitheshBawri Vs M/s. Dalmia Bharath(Ltd)

The Reliance General Insurance Vs Ponnarasi

The Branch Manager, Vs Danapal