Senthil v. The Inspector Of Police (L And O)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Senthil ....
Petitioner Vs The Inspector of Police (L&O), T-12, Selaiyur Police Station, Chennai.
(Crime No.582/2024).
....
Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 / 442 of B.N.S.S., to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.563 of 2025 which was dismissed on 10.07.2025 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Tambaram by allowing this Revision Petition.
For Petitioner :
Mr.U.Yuvaraj For Respondent :
Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
1/6
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order dated 10.07.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.563 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Tambaram.
2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a property developer and running a business in the name and style of M/s.Sky Developers. He was cheated by one Raja @ Seizing Raja along with his associates and the property situated at Agaram 10 Village in S.No.83/2D. It is further submitted that the petitioner given an advance amount of R.25 lakhs to the above said Raja @ Seizing Raja believing that his friend named Selvam (Owner of the property) and later, he came to know that the above said property was belonged to the Government and he questioned about the advance amount given to the said Raja. Later, the petitioner came to know that he died in the encounter. Thereafter, on 19.11.
2024, the Inspector of Police along with his subordinates came to the petitioner's residence and conducted a search, they seized 76 articles and documents from the petitioner's residence. It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not at all arrayed as accused in this case and he requires his properties viz.
(2) Iphone -11, (3) Nokia phone, (4)Scandisk Pendrive 32 GB and (5) Scandisk Pendrive 16 GB.
3.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent/State raised serious objection for allowing this petition as well as returning the properties sought for by the petitioner. He would further submit that the investigation is going on and after trial, there is a chance that the petitioner may be arrayed as an accused. 4.Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
5.Considering facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the property sought for by the petitioner is returned, it will not cause any hindrance to the prosecution. Therefore, the Trial Court is directed to return the above said 5 properties sought for by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as per manner 3/6
known to law.
6.With the above direction, this Criminal Revision is disposed of. 15.09.2025 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order pam 4/6
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate-II, Tambaram.
2.The Inspector of Police (L&O), T-12, Selaiyur Police Station, Chennai.
(Crime No.582/2024).
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
5/6
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
pam 15.09.2025 6/6