Madras High Court
Raj Boopalan vs The State Rep. By on 11 November, 2024
Crl.R.C.No.1619 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.R.C.No.1619 of 2024
Raj Boopalan ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Accused No.2
Vs.
The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
CCD – II, Police Station,
Villupuram District.
Crime No.40/2024. ...Respondent/Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of
the BNSS, to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.7191/2024 dated
10.09.2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate – I, Villupuram and
setaside the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to grant the
custody of the vehicle viz Mahindra XUV300 bearing Reg.No.PY-05-R-
4254 which has been seized by the respondent in Crime No.40 of 2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Senthil Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.V.J.Priyadarsana
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Page No.1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1619 of 2024
ORDER
The petitioner, who is an accused in Crime No.40 of 2024 registered for the offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC and 66 C of the Information Technology Act, aggrieved by the dismissal of his petition filed under 451 of Cr.P.C., for return of his car, viz., Mahindra XUV300 bearing Reg.No.PY-05-R-4254 has preferred the above revision.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 would submit that the allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner, along with the other accused, had obtained SIM cards from various persons by deceiving them and sold the SIM cards to one Mr.Sathyamoorthy and that the SIM cards so sold to one Mr. Sathyamoorthy could be misused by him. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is innocent and in any case, the seizure of his car is unwarranted as the car has nothing to do with the alleged offences against the petitioner; and that the petitioner would abide by any stringent conditions for the return of his car and prayed that the criminal revision may be allowed.
Page No.2 of 6https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1619 of 2024
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent per contra submitted that during the course of the investigation, the car and other SIM cards were seized from the possession of the petitioner. The respondent has also filed the counter-affidavit opposing the above revision.
4. Even according to the respondent, the car seized from the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence. Further, the car was seized on 17.06.2024 and it is kept in the police station in an open place, subject to the vagaries of weather. The value of the car would therefore diminish, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in such cases that the vehicle can be returned to the owner who is entitled to proper custody on conditions.
Hence, this Court is of the view that the car be returned to the petitioner.
5.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram, in Crl.M.P.No.7191 of 2024 in Crime No.40 of 2024 is Page No.3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1619 of 2024 set aside. In view of the same, the respondent is directed to return the vehicle bearing Reg.No.PY-05-R-4254 to the petitioner on the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram;
(ii) The petitioner shall produce the original RC Book along with a self-attested Photostat copy of the RC Book of the vehicle and other relevant records to prove his ownership. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram, shall peruse the RC book and other records, retain a xerox copy of the same and return the original RC book to the petitioner;
(iii) The petitioner shall not alter or alienate the vehicle in any manner;
(iv) The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that he will produce the vehicle as and when required by the respondent and by the court below.Page No.4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1619 of 2024
(v) The return of property would be subject to the result of the confiscation proceedings, if any.
11.11.2024 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dk Note: Issue Order copy by 20.11.2024.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram.
2.The Inspector of Police, CCD – II, Police Station, Villupuram District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.5 of 6https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1619 of 2024 SUNDER MOHAN, J.
dk Crl.R.C.No.1619 of 2024 11.11.2024 Page No.6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis