Ge Tex Electronics Pvt Limited vs The State Rep By Its
2025 Latest Caselaw 7538 Mad

Madras High Court

Ge Tex Electronics Pvt Limited vs The State Rep By Its on 6 October, 2025

Author: T.V.Thamilselvi

Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi

                                                                                           CRL RC No. 1905 of 2025




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED: 06-10-2025

                                                             CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

                                                CRL RC No. 1905 of 2025

                Ge Tex Electronics Pvt Limited
                Represented by its Director Authorized
                Signatory, E.Gunasekaran

                                                                                           Petitioner(s)
                                                                  Vs

                The State Rep By Its,
                The Inspector of Police,
                CCD 1 Tambaram Police Station,
                Tambaram Commissionerate
                Sholinganallur - 600 119

                                                                                           Respondent(s)
                PRAYER
                To set aside the condition No.I imposed in the Judgment dated 22.05.2025 in
                Crl.M.P.No.1348 of 2025 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
                Chengalpet.

                                  For Petitioner(s):       Mr.S.Shivram

                                  For Respondent(s):       Dr.C.E.Pratap,
                                                           Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)



                1/6



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                  ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 07:14:38 pm )
                                                                                         CRL RC No. 1905 of 2025



                                                           ORDER

Challenging the impugned conditions imposed in the judgment dated

22.05.2025in Crl.M.P.No. 1348 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Chengalpet, the petitioner preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

2. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that he is the victim

under the hands of accused, who had looted nearly about Rs.3,90,00,000/-

through online bank fraud. According to the petitioner, the accused involved in

online bank fraud. On believing her words, the petitioner made financial

transaction nearly about Rs.3,90,00,000/- through cheque and thereafter, the

petitioner came to know about the scam made by the accused. Hence, they gave

a complaint, based on that, the F.I.R. was lodged and during the investigation,

the respondent police had seized the accused account, however, the accused

bank account was frozen along with money belongs to the petitioner. Hence,

they have filed a petition for return of cash to the tune of Rs.7,87,533.16/-. On

perusal of records, the trial court allowed the petition on the following

conditions:-

i) the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight

lakhs only) along with two sureties each for a like sum to the

satisfaction of the court;

ii) The petitioner is directed to return the amount of Rs.7,87,533.16/-

as and when directed by the court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 07:14:38 pm )

Now, challenging the impugned conditions imposed by the trial court, the

petitioner had preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

3. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent

raised objections, but admits that all those amounts made in the name of accused

account was frozen by the respondent police during the investigation. However,

according to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.3,90,00,000/- was cheated by the

accused.

4. Considering both side submissions and on perusal of records, the fact

reveals that the respondent police had frozen the amounts made in the name of

accused account along with the money belongs to the petitioner during the

investigation. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the amount, but the

conditions (i) and (ii) imposed by the trial court as such is unwarranted, liable to

be set aside. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the

conditions (i) and (ii) imposed by the trial court in Crl.M.P.No. 1348 of 2025 is

set aside. However, the petitioner is entitled to receive the amount, since they

have already given the undertaking affidavit before the trial court. The other

conditions shall remain unaltered.

06-10-2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 07:14:38 pm )

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No rpp N.B. : Issue order copy on 07.10.2025

To

1. Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpet.

2. The Inspector of Police, CCD 1, Tambaram Police Station, Tambaram Commissionerate, Sholinganallur – 600 119.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 07:14:38 pm )

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 07:14:38 pm )

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

rpp

CRL RC No. 1905 of

06-10-2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 07:14:38 pm )