Allowed

K.Mariyappan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Oct 2023CRL RC(MD)/529/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court set aside an interim custody order granted by the Trial Court with a report of 24.07.2023, which was passed without giving notice or hearing to the revision petitioner. The High Court directed the Trial Court to conduct a fresh inquiry after hearing all parties and pass a final order on merits within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order granting interim custody was set aside. The Trial Court is directed to conduct a fresh inquiry after hearing all parties and pass orders on merits within 15 days.

K.Mariyappan Vs The Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.R.C.(MD) No.529 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.529 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.7531 and 11062 of 2023

¶7

K.Mariyappan ... Petitioner/ Defacto Complainant Vs. 1.State represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thanjavur. ... 1^st Respondent/ Complainant 2.M.Pushparajan ... 2^nd Respondent/ Accused

¶8

Prayer : This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records of the order dated 17.02.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.95 of 2023 in Crime No.34 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thanjavur and set aside the same.

¶9

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶10

Crl.R.C.(MD) No.529 of 2023

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar For R1 : Mr.SS.Madhavan, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.S.Kanagarajan

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.95 of 2023 dated 17.02.2023 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thanjavur, in granting interim custody of the property involved in the case registered in Crime No.34 of 2022.

¶14

Admittedly, the revision petitioner is the defacto complainant and the second respondent is the first accused.

¶15

It is seen from the records that the second respondent has filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the property involved in the above case. The first respondent police has raised their serious objections to grant interim custody of the property to the second respondent. But it is seen from the impugned order that the learned Magistrate has passed the order, as if, the second respondent was

¶16

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Crl.R.C.(MD) No.529 of 2023

¶18

the defacto complainant and allowed the petition and granted interim custody by imposing some conditions. Aggrieved by the said order, the defacto complainant has preferred the present revision.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would mainly submit that no notice was sent to the revision petitioner and their side was not heard before passing the impugned order. It is evident from the impugned order that the revision petitioner was not shown to be heard.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that in pursuance of the order of the learned Magistrate, they have complied with the conditions and received the property in dispute for interim custody. He would further submit that the respondent police may be directed to file charge sheet and they are ready to face the trial and that the learned Magistrate, considering the evidence, can pass final orders with respect to the property in dispute.

¶21

Admittedly, considering the complaint raised by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, this Court directed the

¶22

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Crl.R.C.(MD) No.529 of 2023

¶24

Registry to call for a report from the learned Magistrate. In pursuance of the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thanjavur, submitted a report dated 24.07.2023, wherein, it has been stated that the interim custody of the property has been handed over to the first accused as the ownership was not disputed by the defacto complainant and after duly hearing the respondent/State. But as already pointed out, the Magistrate Court has neither sent any notice nor gave any opportunity to the revision petitioner to putforth their contentions.

¶25

Considering the above facts and circumstances and also the way in which the impugned order was passed and also taking note of the fact that the impugned order was passed, as if, the same was at the instance of defacto complainant, this Court is of the clear view that the impugned order, which is not in accordance with law, is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the trial Court is directed to conduct fresh enquiry in the application in Crl.M.P.No.95 of 2023 after hearing all the parties including the revision petitioner and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶26

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Crl.R.C.(MD) No.529 of 2023

¶28

With the above direction, this Criminal Revision Petition is

¶29

disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶30

05.10.2023

¶31

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No csm

¶32

To:-

¶33

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thanjavur.

¶34

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thanjavur.

¶35

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

¶36

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

Crl.R.C.(MD) No.529 of 2023

¶38

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.

¶39

csm

¶40

ORDER MADE IN Crl.R.C.(MD)No.529 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.7531 and 11062 of 2023

¶41

Dated : 05.10.2023

¶42

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Mariyappan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Mariyappan 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

Boominathan, Vs Veerarasu

S.Stephen Raj, Vs R.Balasundara Moorthy

Murugan, Vs Vijayalakshmi

G.Sankaralingam Vs Vijayakumar

Senthilkumar Vs Jeyaratchagan

S.Gurusamy Vs Ponraj