Leelavathi v. Kalai Rani, And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.08.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Leelavathi ... Petitioner Vs.
1. Kalai Rani, Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai- 600 007.
2. Mr.Rajkumar, The Sherishtadarar, Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
... Respondents Prayer: Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents for their willful, wanton and disobedience of the order in Crl.OP.No.20009 of 2024 dated 09.09.2024 passed by this Hon'ble High Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Samivel For Respondents : Mr.S.Udayakumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 : Mr. Prakash Goklaney for R2
O R D E R
1/5
Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 18.07.2025, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore Chennai has conducted an enquiry regarding the missing document. The report of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has concluded as below: " I further submit that if the Police officials would have filed the said document before the Court, it would have been numbered as either "B" Number or "A" Number. Generally when Form 91, filed before the Courts, by the Police Officials, the same has to be endorsed by the concern court Judicial Officers as '' Check and Receive''. Based on this endorsement, the said Form 91, to be produced before the Property Clerk, to assign "B" Number or "A" Number.
I further submit that on 25.08.2005, Form 91, dated 23.08.2005, was learned to be produced before the Court by the Police official, and the same was endorsed as "Check and Receive", but the police official, had failed to produce the above said document before the Court on the day itself. Later on 12.12.2005, the above said Form 91, dated 23.08.2005, was learnt to be produced before the Court by the Police official once against, and the same was endorsed as "Check and Receive", even that time also the Police Official, had failed to produce the same before the court and neither "B" Number or "A" Number was 2/5
assigned by the concern Court Staff and entries for the same is not found in Form 91. The Magazar alone was marked as Exhibit P.7, the above said Form 91 was not marked as Exhibit in the above said case. Hence, the above said the Original Sale Deed Document No.1659/2004 for the case in C.C.No.7928 /2006 was not filed before any of the court by any of the police officials. I am submitting herewith the copy of the report of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court for Exclusive trial of CCB and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai dated 18.08.2025 along with enclosures and copy of the report of the Inspector of Police, EDF-I, Central Crime Branch, Avadi, Chennai, dated 08.08.2025 for your Honour's kind consideration of the Contempt Petition".
2. From the above, it appears that though the Original Sale Deed registered as Document No.1679 of 2004 dated 10.12.2004, has been seized from the respondent police under Mahazar Ex.P.7, the same had not been produced before the Court and not marked as Ex.P.7.
3. In view of the above fact, the contempt petition is closed with a direction to the respondent police to issue a non traceable certificate to the petitioner herein after following the procedure laid down by the 3/5
Commissioner of Police.
28.08.2025 Vv To
1. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore Chennai
2. Kalai Rani, Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai- 600 007.
3. Mr.Rajkumar, The Sherishtadarar, Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Vv 4/5
28.08.2025 5/5