Allowed

Prabakaran v. State rep by the Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Jul 2025CRL RC/1116/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, the High Court set aside the trial court's order dismissing a petition for the return of a seized mobile phone, directing its return to the petitioner subject to executing a bond and depositing the invoice.

What did the court decide?

The order of 09.11.2024 in Cr.M.P.No.1714 of 2024 was set aside. The respondent is directed to return the mobile phone VIVO Y73 – Light Blue to the petitioner forthwith, subject to execution of a bond

Prabakaran Vs State rep by the Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.RC.No.1116 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.RC.No.1116 of 2025

¶7

Prabakaran S/o. Mariyappan, No.42/1, Nataesanar Street, Ayyampalayam, Tiruvannamalai District. ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, West Police Station, Tiruvannamalai. Cr.No.175/ 2024

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 r/w. 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.1714 of 2024 dated 09.11.2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No: II at Tiruvannamalai and set aside the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jawahar For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.RC.No.1116 of 2025

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No: II at Tiruvannamalai in Cr.M.P.No.1714 of 2024 dated 09.11.2024, thereby dismissing the petition for return of property.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner owned the mobile phone namely VIVO Y73 – Light Blue, and he attempted to promote disharmony between the groups by forwarding WhatsApp messages. In pursuant to the same, the respondent registered FIR in Cr.No.175/2024 for the offences punishable under Section 153A(1)(a) & 505(1)(b) IPC. After registration of FIR the said mobile phone was seized from the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition before the trial Court to return the mobile phone. However, the said petition was dismissed.

¶19

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the

¶20

materials available on record.

¶21

Page 2 of 6

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.RC.No.1116 of 2025

¶24

4. On perusal of the records it reveals that the mobile phone was seized from the petitioner and the same was deposited before the Trial Court. Considering the circumstances of this case, this Court feels that mere keeping the mobile phone under the custody of the trial Court would not serve any purpose.

¶25

5. In view of the above discussions, this Court is inclined to return the alleged mobile to the petitioner and accordingly, the order dated 09.11.2024 made in Cr.M.P.No.1714 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No: II at Tiruvannamalai, is hereby set aside. The respondent is directed to return the mobile phone bearing model : VIVO Y73 – Light Blue to the petitioner forthwith, on the following conditions:-

¶26

(i) the petitioner is directed to execute an own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No: II at Tiruvannamalai, to the credit of Cr.No.175/2024 pending on the file of the respondent police.

¶27

Page 3 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.RC.No.1116 of 2025

¶30

(ii) the petitioner shall deposit the original invoice or bill of the phone with the concerned Magistrate.

¶31

(iii) the seized item should be photographed at the cost of the petitioner herein and a list is to be prepared and the same is to be signed by the petitioner.

¶32

(iv) the petitioner shall not alienate and shall not make any alteration in the mobile.

¶33

(v) the petitioner shall produce the mobile before the Court and before the respondent police as and when required;

¶34

(vi) If any of the conditions are violated, this order automatically stands cancelled.

¶35

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands allowed.

¶36

18.07.2025

¶37

Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order bkn

¶38

Page 4 of 6

¶39

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

¶40

Crl.RC.No.1116 of 2025

¶41

¶42

The Judicial Magistrate No: II at Tiruvannamalai.

¶43

The Inspector of Police, West Police Station, Tiruvannamalai.

¶44

The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶45

Page 5 of 6

¶46

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

¶47

Crl.RC.No.1116 of 2025

¶48

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶49

bkn

¶50

Crl.RC.No.1116 of 2025

¶51

18.07.2025

¶52

Page 6 of 6

¶53

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

Prabakaran v. State rep by the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabakaran v. State rep 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayakumar Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep by the Inspector of Police

M/S.Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co.(P) Limited, Vs P.Srianandan

M.Claro Devdan Vs The State rep by The Inspector of Police

Balasubramanian Vs Anbarasan

Ravindra Kumar Agarwal Vs R.Raman Puri

Thasikumar @ Chinna @ Sharma @ Vinoth Vs Inspector of Police