S.Paramasivam vs The State Rep.
2021 Latest Caselaw 1620 Mad

                                                                                 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3624 of 2021


                         BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                           Reserved on : 09.03.2021
                                           Delivered on : 07.04.2021

                                                          CORAM :

                                    THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R.THARANI

                                               Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3624 of 2021

                     S.Paramasivam                                                ... Petitioner
                                                             Vs.

                     The State rep., through
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Samayanallur Police Station,
                     Madurai District.
                     (crime No.93 of 2020)                                        ... Respondent

                     Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to
                     set aside the order passed in Cr.R.P.No.70 of 2020 on the file of the VI
                     Additional Sessions Court, Madurai dated 25.01.2021 which was confirmed
                     in Cr.M.P.No.1462 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court,
                     Vadipatti dated 21.09.2020.
                                     For Petitioner            : Mr.C.Vakeeswaran
                                     For Respondent            : Mr.S.Chandrasekar
                                                                Additional Public Prosecutor

                                                          ORDER

This petition is filed to set aside the order passed in Cr.R.P.No.70 of

2020 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Court, Madurai, dated

25.01.2021, which was confirmed in Cr.M.P.No.1462 of 2020 on the file of

the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti, dated 21.09.2020. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3624 of 2021

2.The petitioner is the defacto complainant in the case in Crime No.

93 of 2020. 30 sovereigns of jewels, mobile phone and laptop were stolen

from the petitioner. The petitioner has lodged a complaint with the

respondent and the respondent police recovered the jewels, laptop, watch

and mobile phone and produced them for custody before the learned IV

Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai. The petitioner claiming himself as the

owner of the properties filed a petition before the learned IV Additional

Sessions Judge for return of the property in Cr.R.C.No.70 of 2020 and the

said petition was dismissed by the Court, by an order dated 25.01.2021.

Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred this Criminal Original

Petition.

3.On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner is the

defacto complainant. The jewels were recovered by the police as ingot

namely 240 grams. Other claimant is a receiver of stolen property. The

petitioner is entitled to receive the property, even though it is in the form of

ingot. There are previous judgments of this Court, wherein ingots were

returned to the parties and prayed the petition to be allowed.

4.On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the property is in the

form of ingot. There is counter claim from a person, from whom the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3624 of 2021

property was recovered. Since the property is in the form of ingot, the

petitioner cannot claim ingot as his jewels, at this stage and prayed the

petition to be dismissed.

5.It is seen that jewels of the petitioner was stolen by someone and a

case was registered under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. It is stated that on

the confession of the accused in that case, two ingots were recovered from a

jewelry shop. It is seen that the jewelry shop owner filed a petition in

Cr.M.P.No.1454 of 2020 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti

claiming the very same property. Even then the petitioner has not chosen to

implead them as the party in this petition. The original jewels of the

petitioner is not available now and only ingot was seized by the respondent

police. Whether the accused is to be convicted, whether the confession

statement given by the accused is valid and whether the jewelry shop owner

is the receiver of stolen property cannot be decided at this stage before this

forum. This factual matrix can be decided only by the trial Court, after the

completion of the trial.

6.In the above circumstances, there is nothing sufficient enough to

interfere in the order of the trial Court. Hence, the Criminal Original

Petition is dismissed.

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3624 of 2021

7.There is no mentioning about the laptop, mobile phone and wrist

watch in the order passed by the lower Court and hence, the petitioner is at

liberty to approach the lower Court by filing a petition for return of those

properties and on such petition, the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Madurai, shall pass orders in accordance with law.

07.04.2021

Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No rmk Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

To

1.VI Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai.

2.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti.

3.The Inspector of Police, Samayanallur Police Station, Madurai District.

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

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3624 of 2021

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3624 of 2021

R.THARANI, J.,

rmk

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3624 of 2021

07.04.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/