Vijay v. The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.03.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Vijay ... Petitioner Vs.
The Inspector of Police, J-1 Police Station, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.
... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the order dated 07.06.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.9226 of 2023 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Saidapet, Chennai. For Petitioner :
Mr.G.Rajkumar For Respondent :
Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor Page No.1 of 6
ORDER
This Court, on 23.11.2023, had passed the following order: "This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the impugned order, dated 07.06.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.9226 of 2023 passed by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
2. The petitioner's erstwhile father-in-law Vijayannan was entrusted with the petitioner's vehicle namely TATA Sumo Victa car bearing Registration No.TN 22 VC 2271 since his estranged fatherin-law was in the transport business letting out vehicles to the companies. The petitioner's vehicle was running for L & T company. Due to misunderstanding between the petitioner and his wife Uma, they got divorce by mutual consent and the the vehicle was neither handed over to the petitioner nor any transport charges paid. Though Vijayannan agreed to handover the said vehicle at the time of mutual divorce agreement, he failed to do so. Later, the petitioner was informed that the car is with one Rajesh. Thereafter, a complaint has been lodged to the respondent Police, but no action taken, hence, he filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The learned Magistrate finding the delay in lodging the complaint and the complaint is silent regarding the relationship between the petitioner and the said Rajesh, dismissed the petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Page No.2 of 6
said Rajesh is an Advocate, who represented the petitioner's divorced wife Uma. The said Rajesh if called for enquiry, the vehicle would be produced to the petitioner, seeks time to produce any other document.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police submitted that on the complaint of the petitioner, CSR is still pending. Already, a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., issued to Vijayannan, but no response. Again, notice sent to Vijayanan and Rajesh. If they do not respond, appropriate action would be taken. The petitioner is free to produce any materials facilitating the enquiry before the respondent Police during enquiry.
5. Post the matter for further arguments on 08.12.2023." 2.In continuation and conjunction to the earlier order passed by this Court on 23.11.2023, today, it is represented that F.I.R. has been registered by the respondent police in Crime No.67 of 2024 on 29.02.2024. In view of the same, nothing survives in this petition for further adjudication. 3.In view of the specific complaint of the petitioner that the vehicle is being detained by petitioner's erstwhile father-in-law's Advocate, the respondent police is directed to summon the Advocate, enquire him, if required and secure the vehicle.
Page No.3 of 6
4.Since the specific allegation made against the Advocate, the petitioner shall give a complaint along with the copy of F.I.R. to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu against the said Advocate and if materials are available, the Bar Council to proceed against the Advocate for professional misconduct.
5.With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Revision Case is closed.
20.03.2024 Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No rsi Page No.4 of 6
To 1.The Inspector of Police, J-1 Police Station, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.
2.The Metropolitan Magistrate Saidapet, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.5 of 6
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi 20.03.2024 Page No.6 of 6