The Manappuram Finance v. State Rep By The Sub Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN The Manappuram Finance Rep By Its Deputy Manager, R.Udhaya Prakash, CV Finance Tamilnadu, R.Udhaya Prakash, Door No.109, VOC Street, NGGO Nagar, Thirukovillur Taluk, Kallakurichi District-605 757.

... Petitioner Vs

1. State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tiruppathur Taluk Police Station, Crime No.87 of 2025

2. Nallathambi ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the Common order dated 09.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1208 and 1280 of 2025 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirupathur, Tirupathur district in Cr.No.87 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police and return the Hundai Alcazar car, bearing Registration NO.TN-83-ME-0795 to the petitioner herein.

For Petitioner : M/s K.Malathi

For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

This Criminal Revision has been filed to set aside the Common order dated 09.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1208 and 1280 of 2025 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirupathur, Tirupathur district, thereby ordering to return of vehicle in favour of the second respondent.

2. Heard and perused the materials placed on record.

3. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent as against the accused 1 to 6, FIR has been registered in Crime No.87 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 314, 316, 318, 61(1) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023, alleging that the first accused produced a fake demand draft and the second respondent purchased car in his name. Subsequently, the car was taken by the first accused. Pursuant to the registration of FIR, the car bearing Registration No.TN 83 ME 0795 has been seized from the custody of the first accused and produced before the Court. Therefore, the second respondent, who is being the complainant filed a petition to return the property. Simultaneously, the petitioner, who is being the financier of the said vehicle also filed a petition to

return the vehicle, on the ground that the second respondent committed default in payment of monthly installment.

4. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, only the car has been seized and as such, the Trial Court had rightly ordered to return the car in favour of the second respondent.

5. If at all the petitioner finds any default on the part of the second respondent in paying the monthly installment as per the agreement, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate action as against the second respondent including the seizure of the vehicle from the custody of the second respondent.

6. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the Common order dated 09.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1208 and 1280 of 2025 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirupathur, Tirupathur district.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.

18.08.2025 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order mn

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirupathur, Tirupathur district.

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tiruppathur Taluk Police Station,

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, mn 18.08.2025