Shriram Finance Ltd. Vs The Superintendent of Police

V.Duraipandi, S/o.Velayutham, Proprietor, M/s.Parvati Finance Pawn Brokers, D No.7 Velayutham Compound, Vellaikannu Theatre Road, Arasaradi, Madurai 62.

¶16

5.S.Shobiya,

¶17

A.Sivakumar ... Respondents

¶18

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS,

¶19

2023, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned summon of the third Respondent dated 02.01.2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequently restrained the Respondents No.1 to 3 from seize the jewels from the Petitioners Company in connection with Crime No.24 of 2018 registered by the second respondent which was transferred and reassigned as Crime No.1 of 2023 on the file of the third respondent without following the due process of law.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Thirumurugan, Advocate. For R1 to R3 : Mr.Veera.Kathiravan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R4 : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian

¶21

2/6

¶22

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

¶23

CRL OP(MD). No.285 of 2024

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner seeks to quash impugned summons dated 02.01.2024 and consequently, restrain the respondents 1 to 3 from seizing the jewels from the Petitioner's Company in connection with Crime No.1 of 2023 on the file of the third respondent.

¶26

2.It is the case of the petitioner that the jewels were pledged by certain individuals and the petitioner had advanced loans to those persons; that if the jewels are recovered from the petitioner, their right to recover the money would be lost and that in any case, the jewels cannot be returned to any person unless the rights of the parties are ultimately determined by the Criminal Court.

¶27

3.The learned counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that

¶28

the fourth respondent is also a victim in the case; that the jewels ought to have been returned to him and that there are other claims as well from the accused.

¶29

4.Considering the fact that there are complicated issues involved in

¶30

this case, it would not be desirable to hand over the interim custody of

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

CRL OP(MD). No.285 of 2024

¶34

the jewels to any person pending disposal of the trial. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the jewels pledged with the petitioner, which are suspected to be stolen, has to be handed over to the concerned Judicial Magistrate, who shall keep them in safe custody until the trial is concluded. The learned Judicial Magistrate may, on conclusion of the trial, decide as to who would be entitled to the jewels. In the meanwhile, it is needless to say that if any party has any legal claim against another, there is no bar in initiating proceedings for recovery of the money before the Civil Court.

¶35

5.With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶36

13.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No cp

¶37

TO

¶38

1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District. Madurai.

¶39

4/6

¶40

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