Allowed

Kumaraguru v. State Represented by The Inspector of Police

Madras HC22 Feb 2021WP(MD)/3305/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, directed the release of a seized lorry to the petitioner subject to conditions including a non-refundable deposit and undertaking to produce the vehicle for further enquiries.

What did the court decide?

Directed release of the seized vehicle TN 45 AT 5634 to the petitioner on payment of Rs.40,000 non-refundable cost and compliance with conditions.

Kumaraguru Vs State Represented by The Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.3305 of 2021

¶2

Kumaraguru

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.02.2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.3305 of 2021

¶4

Kumaraguru ... Petitioner -Vs1.State represented by the Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District. (Crime No.20/2021) 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. 3.The Assistant Director, Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to return the Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN 45 AT 5634 (Ashok Leyland) to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Veerasekaran For Respondents : Mrs.M.Rajeswari Government Advocate

¶5

ORDER

¶6

Heard the learned counsel on either side. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶7

2.The petition mentioned vehicle was seized in connection with the petition mentioned crime number. The petitioner's counsel states that till date the vehicle in question has not been produced before the jurisdictional court.

¶8

3.It has been authoritatively held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Others V. State of Gujarat) that whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. That would not only serve any purpose but also result in loss of value.

¶9

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

¶10

1/3

¶11

W.P.(MD)No.3305 of 2021

¶12

4.Notwithstanding the registration of criminal cases, the vehicle in question is yet to be produced before the jurisdictional court. Therefore, the writ court is definitely possessed of the power to direct release of the vehicle. Neither the petitioner nor the vehicle is involved in any previous case of the same nature. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remit a sum of Rs.40,000/- as non refundable cost.

¶13

5.Shri.K.Veera Raghava Rao, I.A.S., Director of Employment and Training is presently working out a module for imparting training to visually impaired persons in type writing and stenography. The candidates will have to buy laptop and also type machine in braille system. The course may also involve expenditure. To enable the aforesaid Government Department to conduct the said programme so that at least some of the visually challenged persons can stand on their own feet with dignity, the Registrar (Administration) shall utilize the amount now directed to be deposited for the aforesaid purpose.

¶14

6.Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions, I direct release of the petition mentioned vehicle subject to the following conditions :

¶15

a) The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) to the account of the Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai in Account No.6988563932, IFSC Code : IDIB000H040, Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Madurai. It will be a non refundable payment.

¶16

b) The petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle in question till the proceedings are completed.

¶17

c) The petitioner shall produce all the documents pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicle. If the petitioner concerned is an agreement holder and the R.C book is with the financier, he or she can be permitted to produce the photocopies of the relevant documents and if the vehicle is a new one, sales invoice can be produced.

¶18

d) As and when the respondents call for the vehicle for enquiry, the petitioner has to produce the vehicle in question and shall cooperate with the enquiry to be conducted by the respondents.

¶19

7.After completion of the aforesaid formalities, the

¶20

respondents shall release the petition mentioned vehicle forthwith without any delay. If the undertaking given by the petitioner is breached, the petitioner will not be entitled to interim release of the vehicle in future and the order passed by this Court will stand recalled and the vehicle in question will be taken back to custody

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and it will be released only after getting orders from this Court on

¶22

2/3

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.3305 of 2021

¶24

such terms as this Court may deem it fit to impose. It is made clear that what I am granting is only interim custody of the vehicle. Other proceedings may go on.

¶25

8.The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly.

¶26

Assistant Registrar ()

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

rmi

¶30

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. To

¶31

1.The Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District.

¶32

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

¶33

3.The Assistant Director, Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

¶34

Copy to:

¶35

The Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶36

+1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-6698[F] dated 23/02/2021 ) +1 CC to Mr.D.VEERASEKARAN, Advocate ( SR-6999[F] dated 24/02/2021 )

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.3305 of 2021 22.02.2021

¶38

VB (02.03.2021) 3P 7C

¶39

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

¶40

3/3

Kumaraguru v. State Represented by The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumaraguru v. State Represented by 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

M/S Dhanadhanya Dwellings(Pvt) Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax

Sri Balaganesan Spinners Vs the Joint Commissioner of Customs

Vanniarajan.C Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Solai.C Vs State Rep.by

M/S.Prabhu Shipping Systems Vs Under Secretary to the Government of India

Rajesh.P Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer