Madras High Court
Karthi vs The State on 29 November, 2023
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl. O.P. No.26877 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 29.11.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P No.26877 of 2023
Karthi
.. Petitioner
Vs.
The State, rep. By
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Salem Town Police Station,
Salem District.
(Crime No.4 of 2022)
..Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C, to set aside the docket order dated 02.09.2023 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem in CMP No. unnumbered of 2023 in C.C.
No.1126 of 2022 and order interim custody of the vehicle ROYAL
ENFIELD Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No.TN 34 AB 7632 to the
petitioner in C.C. No.1126 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Vasudevan
For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The petitioner who is the owner of the ROYAL ENFIELD Motor
Cycle bearing Registration No.TN 34 AB 7632 entrusted the same to an
Auto Consultant to sell the two wheeler. The said Auto Consultant by
name Rambalaji, had sold the two wheeler to one Praveen for
Rs.1,60,000/- received Rs.25,000/- as advance and handed over the
vehicle. Meanwhile, the said Praveen was involved in a case in Crime
No.27 of 2022 on the file of Kamasamuthram Police Station, was
arrested along with vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 34 AB 7632.
The said vehicle was taken as a case property and produced before the
learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate (FC), Bangarpet.
2. Knowing about the facts, the petitioner herein is the owner of
the vehicle had approached the learned Additional Civil Judge and
Judicial Magistrate (FC), Bangarpet, filed an Application for releasing
the vehicle and placed him at interim custody. Considering the request
and verifying the ownership as well as identity of the vehicle, the learned
Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate (FC), Bangarpet vide
order dated 20.04.2022 had entrusted the custody of the vehicle to the
petitioner herein on certain conditions. One of the condition, that the
petitioner shall produce the aforesaid vehicle before the Investigation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Officer or before the Court as and when called for.
3. After taking interim custody of the vehicle, the Salem Town
Police which is investigating the FIR No.4 of 2022, that is the complaint
of Rambalaji, Auto Consultant to whom the petitioner had entrusted the
vehicle for sale, thought fit that this vehicle has to be taken possession in
that case and accordingly, the vehicle was seized from the petitioner
herein and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Salem.
4. Narrating the above facts, the petitioner herein had moved the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem for interim custody of the
vehicle, but that was declined by the Magistrate. Further, Revision filed
before this Court in Crl.R.C. No.1261 of 2022, also dismissed on the
ground that the final report filed and taken cognizance by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Salem in C.C. No.271 of 2022 and therefore, instead
of entrusting the interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner, the trial
itself can be completed within a period of three months.
5. Citing the change of circumstances, the petitioner has once
again approached the learned Magistrate seeking interim custody but the
Application been returned with an endorsement that since the earlier
petition for interim custody made in CMP. No.1477 of 2022, dismissed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on 13.05.2022, the second petition is not maintainable.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the second petition for return of property was based on the change of
circumstances. The first petition was filed before completion of
investigation and the second petition was filed after completion of
investigation and final report taken cognizance. Further referring the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai
Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002 10 SCC 219), vehicle need not be
detained in Court custody, exposing to rain and shine and no prejudice to
be caused to the prosecution, if the interim custody given to the
petitioner.
7. Further more, the learned counsel also submitted that the
petitioner as the owner of the vehicle with an undertaking before the
learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate (FC), Bangarpet,
has taken interim custody of the vehicle on condition that he should
produce before the Court at Bangarpet as and when called for. Whileso,
the vehicle, which is now in the custody of the Court cannot be produced
by the petitioner before the Bangarpet Court, if it is directed to produce
the vehicle.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. It is an admitted case that the vehicle stands in the name of the
petitioner, it is also admitted that it was the petitioner who informed the
Investigation Officer about the recovery of the vehicle by the
Kamasamudram Police Station and his custody of the vehicle pursuant to
the release order passed by the Bangarpet Court vide order dated
20.04.2022. The respondent police has taken custody of the vehicle only
thereafter, under Form 91 dated 22.04.2022. Therefore, the trial Court
shall entertain the second petition for interim custody of the vehicle and
pass appropriate orders in tune with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
9. With this direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed
of.
29.11.2023
Internet : Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
rkp
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rkp
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Salem.
2.The Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate (FC),
Bangarpet.
3.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Salem Town Police Station,
Salem District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Madras.
29.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
