Madras High Court
A.Jayakumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 January, 2021
Crl. OP No.18451 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P No.18451 of 2020
A.Jayakumar ... Petitioner/Petitioner
vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By The SHO,
Kadampuliyur P.S.,
Kadampuliyur, Panruti Taluk,
Cuddalore District. ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439(1)(b) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to modify order dated 25.08.2020 passed in
Crl. M.P. No.775 of 2020, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate – II, Panruti.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Senthil Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.Mohammed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. OP No.18451 of 2020
ORDER
This Petition has been filed aggrieved by the conditions imposed by
the Court below by allowing the application filed by the petitioner seeking
for return of his vehicle in Crime No.542 of 2020.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he had parked his vehicle in front
of the house of his father-in-law, on 14.06.2020. There was some clash
between two groups and as a result of which the car belonging to the
petitioner was badly damaged. This car was seized by the respondent police
in the course of investigation, since this car was one of the material object in
this case.
3. The petitioner filed an application before the Court below seeking
for return of the vehicle and the application came to be allowed by the Court
below by an order dated 25.08.2020 by imposing certain conditions.
Aggrieved by the conditions imposed by the Court below, the present
petition has been filed seeking for modification of the conditions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. OP No.18451 of 2020
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
is involved in the business of selling second hand cars and the vehicle
which got involved in the present case was also a car which was supposed
to be sold in the course of his business. The learned counsel further
submitted that the conditions imposed by the Court below will virtually
prevent the petitioner from dealing with his car and more particularly where
the petitioner had nothing to do with the offence and the car belonging to
the petitioner, unfortunately got damaged during some violent incident
between two groups.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.
6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel on either side and also the material available on record.
7. In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner is a third party
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. OP No.18451 of 2020
and he has nothing to do with the alleged incident which resulted in a
criminal case. Unfortunately the car belonging to the petitioner was also
damaged during the violent clash and it is sought to be produced as a
material object in the case. In a case of this nature, this court has repeatedly
held that the Court must avoid holding the vehicles and rather follow a
procedure by causing necessary photographs of the vehicle and preparing a
panchnama. This can be marked at the time of the trial and sufficient
guidelines have been given by this Court in this regard. Useful reference
can be made to the judgment of this Court in Selvam and Ors. Vs. State and
Ors., reported in (2012) 2 CTC 549, and K. Ramar Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu, reported in 2013 (1) MLJ (Crl) 101.
8. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to interfere with the
conditions imposed by the Court below while allowing the application filed
by the petitioner for return of vehicle in Crl. MP. No.775 of 2020 in Cr.
No.542 of 2020. The matter is remanded back to the file of the Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Panruti, The learned Magistrate is directed to follow the
guidelines issued by this Court, wherein necessary directions were given to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. OP No.18451 of 2020
take photographs and preparing a panchnama in Selvam and Ors. Vs. State
and Ors., reported in (2012) 2 CTC 549, and K. Ramar Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu, reported in 2013 (1) MLJ (Crl) 101. After the completion of the
process, the vehicle shall be handed over to the petitioner to enable the
petitioner to deal with the property. This process shall be completed within
a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9. This Criminal original Petition is disposed of with the above
directions.
06.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
jv
Note : Issue order copy on 08.01.2021
To
THE SHO,
State of Tamil Nadu
Kadampuliyur P.S.,
Kadampuliyur, Panruti Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. OP No.18451 of 2020
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
jv
Crl.O.P No.18451 of 2020
06.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
