Madras High Court
Thirukumaran vs The Inspector Of Police on 24 January, 2023
Crl.R.C.No.110 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Crl.R.C.No.110 of 2023
Thirukumaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Vedaranyam Police Station,
Nagapattinam District
Crime No.151 of 2022 ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under sections 397 and 401 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the order dated 11.10.2022
passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate (FAC),
Vedaranyam, Nagapattinam District in Crl.M.P.No.2750 of 2022 in Crime
No.151 of 2022 and to return the TATA Zest Car Vehicle bearing
Regn.No.TN-66-P-4099, Chasis No.MAT624028ELN31025 and Engine
No.101A20000545436 to the custody of the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr. N. Palanivel
For Respondent : Mr. V. Meganathan
GA (crl.side)
1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.110 of 2023
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated
11.10.2022 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
(FAC), Vedaranyam, Nagapattinam District in Crl.M.P.No.2750 of 2022 in
Crime No.151 of 2022, dismissing the petition seeking return of vehicle
bearing Regn.No.TN-66-P-4099 belonging to the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
is the owner of the vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN-66-P-4099. He had
purchased it from one Hariharan for a sum of Rs.2,70,000/-, pursuant to
which, the ownership of the vehicle has also been transferred from the said
Hariharan's name into petitioner's name. The respondent police has seized
his vehicle in Crime No.151 of 2022. He is not connected with the case
registered by the respondent police and his name is not found in FIR.
Hence, he filed an application before the trial court in Crl.M.P.No.2750 of
2022 seeking return of the vehicle to him, but the trial court without
properly appreciating the registration certificate filed by the petitioner, held
2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.110 of 2023
that the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle. He further submitted that
though he filed Form 24 (Moto Vehicle Register), Tamil Nadu Transport
Department Authority – Udumalpet RTO, Form of Note of Transfer of
Ownership of Motor Vehicle – Form 29 and Application for intimation and
transfer of ownership of a Motor Vehicle (Form 30) and a letter from the
said Hariharan to this petitioner to prove that the vehicle has been sold by
the said Hariharan to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- and also the
transfer of ownership, the trial court without considering the said
documents in a proper perspective, dismissed the petition observing that the
petitioner has not produced any records to show that the vehicle belongs to
him. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside
3. He further submitted that the vehicle has been kept uncared under
idle condition being exposed under unconditional weather conditions, due to
which, the value of the vehicle will be drastically deteriorated. He is abide by
any condition that may be imposed on him while releasing the vehicle. Thus
he seeks interim custody of the vehicle.
3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.110 of 2023
4. The learned Govt Advocate (crl.side) conceded that the petitioner
is not named as an accused in the FIR and the transfer of ownership of the
vehicle is mentioned in the registration certificate in Form 24.
5. Heard both sides and considered the materials available on record.
6. On perusal of records, the fact reveals that the respondent police
had registered a case against the accused persons in Crime No.151 of 2022
for the offences punishable under sections 147, 323, 294(b), 506(20, 363
and 379 IPC and also seized the vehicle viz., TATA Zest Car Vehicle
bearing Regn.No.TN-66-P-4099. Admittedly, the petitioner is not an
accused in the case registered in Crime No.151 of 2022 and further the Form
24 issued by the Motor Vehicle Authorities (Motor Vehicles Registration)
reveals the fact that originally the vehicle was registered on 10.4.2015 in the
name of Hariharan as owner, subsequently the same got re-transferred in
the name of this petitioner Thirukumaran on 8.5.2019, but the trial court
4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.110 of 2023
erroneously recorded that Hariharan is the present owner and the petitioner
is the previous owner and dismissed the petition seeking for interim
custody of the vehicle. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial
court is unsustainable on fact. Hence, the same deserves to be set aside.
7. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai vs State Of Gujarat, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in paragraph No.17 has held as follows:
''In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to
keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a long
period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders
immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as
well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required
at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of
applications for return of such vehicles.''
Under these circumstances, considering the above principle laid down by the
Honourable Supreme Court in the case cited supra, I am inclined to return
the vehicle on interim custody to the petitioner on the following conditions.
5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.110 of 2023
8. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Court below is set
aside and the court below is directed to return the vehicle TATA Zest Car
bearing Regn.No.TN-66-P-4099 to the petitioner, on complying the
following conditions:
i. the petitioner shall prove his ownership of the
vehicle by producing the R.C. Book and other
relevant records;
ii. the petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the
vehicle in any manner;
iii.the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of
Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand
only) before the District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate (FAC), Vedaranyam, Nagapattinam
District
iv.the petitioner shall give an undertaking that he
will not use the vehicle for any illegal activities
in future,
v. the petitioner shall take photograph of the
vehicle; and
vi.the petitioner shall also produce the vehicle as
and when required before the court below and
6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.110 of 2023
before the respondent police.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed.
24.01.2023
msr
Index:Yes/no
Internet:Yes/No
To
1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate (FAC), Vedaranyam,
Nagapattinam District.
2. The The Inspector of Police,
Vedaranyam Police Station,
Nagapattinam District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.110 of 2023
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.,
msr
Crl.R.C.No.110 of 2023
24.01.2023
8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
