M.Sanjay v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23-09-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI M.Sanjay S/o.Manokar, No.80, North Street, Vadakkanandal (TP) Viluppuram - 606 207.

Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep by Inspector of Police, Kachirapallayam Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

Respondent(s) PRAYER To set-aside the order dated 10.06.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1271 of 2025, by the Learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Kallakurichi, in connection with Crime No.156 of 2024, registered for the offences under section 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 133, 351(3),109(1) BNS, on the file of the Respondent police and direct the Respondent herein to return the petitioner's bike Bajaj Discover bearing Registration No.TN 30-BA-7562.

1/5

For Petitioner(s):

Mr. M.Govindaraju For Respondent(s):

Dr.C.E.Pratap, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order dated 10.06.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 1271 of 2025 by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Kallakurichi in connection with Crime No.156 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sec.126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 133, 351(3), 109(1) of B.N.S., on the file of respondent police and direct the respondent herein to return the petitioner's bike Bajaj Discover bearing Regn. No.TN-30 BA-7562, the petitioner had preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

2. Before the trial court, the petitioner had filed a petition for return of vehicle under Sec. 497 and 506 of B.N.S.S. and the same was dismissed by the trial court stating that so far, T.O. Form-29 and 30 has not been applied. Against which, he preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

3. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that though the transfer of ownership form is duly signed by the previous owner in favour of petitioner, the trial court failed to consider the same. Hence, he prayed to set aside the findings of trial court and to return the petitioner's vehicle. 2/5

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent raised objections stating that the vehicle was belonged to the accused, which was involved in Sec.307 I.P.C., but as on date, he has not produced the T.O. Form - 29 and 30.

5. Considering both side submissions, the fact reveals that as on date, T.O. Form-29 and 30 was not available. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow this petition with a condition directing the petitioner to get the vehicle on submitting T.O. Form 29 and 30 as per manner known to law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed.

23-09-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes rpp To

1. Judicial Magistrate-I, Kallakurichi.

2. Inspector of Police, Kachirapallayam Police Station, Kallakurichi Dt.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 3/5

4/5

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

rpp CRL RC No. 1792 of 23-09-2025 5/5