Madras High Court
Elango vs The State Represented By on 20 November, 2019
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Crl.RC.No.1171 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.RC.No.1171 of 2019
Elango ... Petitioner/ Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Anti-Vice Squad,
Chintadripet,
CCB, Chennai District. ... Respondent/Respondent
PRAYER: The Criminal Revision Petition has been filed, under Sections
397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the order dated
12.10.2018, made in Crl.M.P.No.1809 of 2018 on the file of the learned IV
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and to set aside the same and to
direct the respondent herein to return the petitioner samsung cell phone,
parlour key.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saranraj
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
The Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No. 1809 of 2018 in AVS Crime No.68 of 2018, dated 12.10.2018, dismissing the petition filed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. http://www.judis.nic.in1/6 Crl.RC.No.1171 of 2019 2 The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner was running a Beauty Parlour in the name of Illusion Hair Studio at New No.8, Old No.29, Sasthri Nagar I Main Road, Adayar, Chennai – 20. The respondent had registered a case in Crime No.68 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 3(2)a, 4(1) 5(1)a, 6(1)a and 7(1)a of ITP Act, based on the complaint of one Mr.Iruthaya Selvanathan, Police Officer, that the petitioner and another person were conducting prostitution. Based on the complaint, a case was registered and the premises was locked and the key was taken and a cell phone was also recovered from the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a petition seeking for return of the key and the mobile phone contending that the petitioner was running a beauty parlour in the premises and that the Investigating Officer without following the legal mandate locked the beauty parlour and had taken the key. The respondent had objected to return of the key and the cell phone stating that the premises was used for the offence of prostitution and that the petitioner had converted the premises as brothel house. The Trial Court finding that the petitioner had not produced any documents during the enquiry on his claim that he was running a beauty parlour and also finding that the investigation is pending, had dismissed the petition. As against the same, the present revision has been filed.
http://www.judis.nic.in2/6 Crl.RC.No.1171 of 2019
3 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is running a beauty parlour, which needs no license and that the respondent police without following the due procedure, had conducted a raid, disturbed the business of the petitioner and when it was questioned by the petitioner, they have registered two cases against the petitioner and that the premises was locked and the key and the cell phone of the petitioner was taken. He would also submit that the petitioner has filed a quash petition in Crl.O.P.No.22194 of 2019 and Crl.O.P.No.22200 of 2019 challenging the registration of FIR and this Court had admitted the quash petition and granted interim stay. He would submit that there is no need and necessity for the respondent to keep the key with him and the petitioner is entitled to do his legal business and thereby, he would seek for return of the properties.
4 The respondent had filed a counter stating that the respondent on specific investigation conducted a raid and found the petitioner along with other persons were involved in conducting prostitution in the premises in the guise of running a beauty parlour and they have seized one samsung cell phone and five condoms under the cover of seizure and Mahazar and that the place was used for immoral activities, had locked the premises and taken the key. Further, it had been contended that if the key is returned back, there is http://www.judis.nic.in3/6 Crl.RC.No.1171 of 2019 further possibility that it will be used again for conducting same immoral activities.
5 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that the petitioner had indulged in committing immoral activities in the guise of running a beauty parlour and that investigation is pending. He would submit that if the cell phone is returned to the petitioner, there is chance of the evidences being destroyed and witnesses being tampered and that he would vehemently oppose for return of properties.
6 At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is running a beauty parlour in a rented premises and that since it has been locked, he is facing severe hardships. He would submit that the petitioner is prepared to file necessary undertaking before the Trial Court that the premises will not be used for any immoral activities and that the premises will be used only for a legal business.
7 Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record. 8 Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed and the order passed by the learned http://www.judis.nic.in4/6 Crl.RC.No.1171 of 2019 IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, dated 12.10.2018, in Crl.M.P.No.1809 of 2018, is partly set aside. While dismissing the petition in respect of return of the mobile phone, in respect of return of the key of the premises to the petitioner, this petition is allowed on the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties to the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.
ii) The petitioner shall file an Affidavit of undertaking before the Trial Court stating that the premises will not be used for any illegal activities in future.
9 In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed with the above observations.
20.11.2019 Index:Yes/No Web: Yes/No dua To
1.The Inspector of Police, Anti-Vice Squad, Chintadripet, CCB, Chennai District.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in5/6 Crl.RC.No.1171 of 2019 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.J, dua Crl.RC.No.1171 of 2019 20.11.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in6/6