Allowed

Bharathi v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC20 Jun 2022CRL OP/5985/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal original petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, the court directed the Tahsildar to return the petitioner's seized vehicle. The direction was conditional on following due process under the Mines and Minerals Act and obtaining a bond for interim custody, noting the FIR was not yet registered.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first Respondent to return the petitioner's vehicle after obtaining a bond for interim custody to avoid exposure to nature.

Bharathi Vs the Tahsildar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.06.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.5985 of 2021

Bharathi

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Tahsildar,

¶10

Hosur,

¶11

Krishnagiri District.

¶12

State represented by its The Inspector of Police, Sulagiri Police Station,

¶13

Krishnagiri District.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition had been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to direct the first respondent to produce the petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-77-5005 before the learned Judicial Magistrate -I, Hosur.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.L.Baskaran

¶18

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Criminal Original Petition had been filed to direct the first Respondent to produce the Petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-77-5005 before the learned Judicial Magistrate -I, Hosur.

¶21

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the vehicle was seized by the second Respondent for transportation of river sand without any valid licence. For the same, till date the First Information Report has not been registered.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) also files status report stating that the Investigation Officer is requesting the Tahsildar to proceed the case as per the provisions of transportation of river sand under the Mines and Minerals Act so that, he can proceed with the investigation.

¶23

Considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the reply of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), it is found that till date First Information Report has not been registered. Under those circumstances, the first Respondent/Tahsildar is directed to return the vehicle to the Petitioner by following the due process of law regarding the prevention of theft of sand under the Mines and Minerals Act, after obtaining bond for the same from the Petitioner granting interim custody to avoid exposing the vehicle to vagaries of nature.

¶24

With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

tri

¶29

¶30

The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Hosur.

¶31

The Tahsildar, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶32

The Inspector of Police, Sulagiri Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

¶33

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.5985 of 2021

¶35

SKM[co] NSK/13/07/2022

Bharathi v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharathi v. the Tahsildar

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

Nirmala Mary Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.Indian Institute of Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S.Icici Bank Ltd.

Vijayraj Surana Vs Uco Bank

Raja Vs the State Rep.by

Ranjithkumar Vs State Rep.by

M.Gunasheela Vs Msa Shipping Private Limited.