← Library
Madras High CourtCRL RC/133/2025dismissed

Jeeva v. State By, The Sub Inspector Ofpolice,

2025-04-07Honourable Mr Justice P. Velmurugan5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.04.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Jeeva ... Petitioner Vs The State by The Sub Inspector of Police, Veppur Police Station, Cuddalore.

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 and 442 of BNSS, to set aside the order dated 18.12.2024 passed in C.M.P.No.9138 of 2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhachalam.

For Petitioner : Ms.S.Nishanthi For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 18.12.2024 passed in C.M.P.No.9138 of 2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhachalam.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondentPolice and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner has filed the petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C., in C.M.P.No.9138 of 2024 seeking interim custody of the vehicle, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhachalam. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. The leaned Magistrate, vide impugned order, dated 18.12.2024, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this criminal revision petition.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/Police submitted that investigation is pending and charge sheet is yet to be filed. However, the property was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhachalam and C.P.No.110 of 2023 was allowed on 13.10.2023. Hence, he seeks dismissal of this revision petition.

5. Though, neither investigation is completed, nor charge sheet is filed yet, the property was produced before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has also taken the symbolical possession of the property, and the same is under physical possession of the Police. The petitioner has not produced any document/Registration Certificate to prove the ownership of the vehicle. Hence, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. This Court does not find any reason to interefere with the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. Since the respondent has not proved the ownership of the vehicle, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as sought for in this petition.

6. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. 07.04.2025 mfa Index:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhachalam.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Veppur Police Station, Cuddalore.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

mfa 07.04.2025