Allowed

Subbaiah @ Subramani v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 Mar 2022CRL OP(MD)/2930/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, Hereditary Trustee of a temple, challenged summons issued to eight stone idols permanently enshrined in the temple. Court set aside summons, directing trial to proceed with photographs of the idols already in evidence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned summons issued to idols set aside; respondent directed to proceed with trial using photographs already on record.

Subbaiah @ Subramani Vs The Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2930 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.03.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2930 of 2022 in Crl.M.P(MD)No.2187 of 2022

Subbaiah @ Subramani

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Annavasal Police Station, Pudukottai District. (Crime No.45 of 2005)

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to set aside the notice issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Susikumar For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the notice issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur, thereby, called upon the petitioner to produce eight numbers of idols which were returned in favour of the petitioner in pursuant to the FIR registered in Crime No.45 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC on the file of the respondent herein.

¶16

The petitioner is the Hereditary Trustee of Pidari Amman Temple. While being so, in the year 2005, some miscreants has stolen eight idols from the said Temple which are sculptured in stone. Therefore, a complaint was lodged and the same was registered in Crime No.45 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC on the file of the respondent herein. During investigation, the respondent recovered eight idols from accused persons and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur by Form-91 in P.R.No.22/2005. Thereafter, the trustee had filed a petition for return of all those idols under Section 451 and 457 Cr.P.C and the same was allowed and the petitioner was given https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

1/2

¶18

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2930 of 2022

¶19

interim custody of the idols by order, dated 26.04.2005. Thereafter, all the idols were kept in the Temple as permanent idols and also conducted kumbabisegam to those idols. Those idols are kept as permanent idols in the temple and all are worshiped in the said Temple. After 16 years, now a case has been coming to the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.4 of 2019. Therefore, for trial purpose the learned Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur issued the summons to those eight idols which were returned in favour of the petitioner. All the idols were photographed and the photographs were already produced and they are recorded.

¶20

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not able to produce those idols which were now permanently fixed in the Pidari Amman Temple, before the Court for trial purpose. Therefore, the impugned summons already issued is set aside. However, the respondent is directed to proceed with the trial with the photographs of the stolen idols which were already on record.

¶21

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶24

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

¶25

The Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur.

¶26

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam.

¶27

The Inspector of Police, Annavasal Police Station, Pudukottai District.

¶28

The Additional Public Prosecutor,

¶29

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.

¶30

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2930 of 2022 in Crl.M.P(MD)No.2187 of 2022 16.03.2022

¶31

MGA

¶32

MS/31.03.2022/2P.5C

¶33

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

¶34

2/2

Subbaiah @ Subramani v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subbaiah @ Subramani 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

Subadha Vs The Inspector of Police

M. Nagajothi Vs The Inspector of Police

S. Chandru Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Perumal Vs the Inspector of Police

Arivu.P Vs the Superintendent of Police

Nagalakshmi Vs the Director General of Police