P.Tamilarasi v. The State By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21-11-2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI P.Tamilarasi D/o.Perumal (Late), No.203, Saraswathi Ramakrishna Street, Valasaravakkam Post, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur - 600 087.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State by Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch, EDF-I, Beta-I, Vepery, Chennai-7.

Crime No.247 of 2024 ..Respondent(s) To set aside he order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate for exclusive trial of CCB Cases, Egmore, Chennai-8 in Crl.M.P.No.10033/2025 in CCB Crime No.247/2024 on 09.10.2025 and allow the revision petition filed by the petitioner and direct Trial Court to return the electronic articles deposited in A.No.693/2025 on 16.04.2025 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate for exclusive trial of CCB Cases, Egmore, Chennai - 8 and pass such other orders as deemed fit in the interest of justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr. S.Senthil For Respondent(s):

Dr.C.E.Pratap Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) __________Page 1 of 4

Order This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order dated 09.10.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.10033 of 2025 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases, Egmore, Chennai, thereby dismissing the petition filed for return of electronic articles deposited in A.No.693 of 2025 on 16.04.2025.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner company had entered into commercial contract with the defacto complainant in the year 2021 for supply of white sugar and on believing their words, they had made payment through bank. Though they have received the amount the petitioner company failed to supply the goods as their promise and deceived them. Hence, a case has been registered in CCB Crime No.247 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 409, 420 r/w 120(B) of I.P.C. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the movable properties belonging to the petitioner was seized and produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases, Egmore, Chennai.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there are totally four accused in this case, in which the petitioner is arrayed as A1. He further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He would also submit that the So, charge levelled against the petitioner/A1 was dismissed by the trial court, which is under investigation. He __________Page 2 of 4

also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court for the release of the vehicle.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner is an accused in this case and the electronic articles were seized by the respondent police. He would also submit that he had sent a proposal to get a G.O. to make interim attachment of movable properties.

5. Considering his submissions stating that there was a proposal sent to get a Government Order to make attachment of movable properties, handing over of electronic articles at this stage is not permissible, since more than a sum of Rs.10 crores involved in the said offence. Therefore, this court is not inclined to hand over the electronic articles to the petitioner company and the order passed by the trial judge in Crl.M.P.No.10033 of 2025 is confirmed. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 21-11-2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order RPP To

1. Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB cases, Egmore, Chennai.

2. Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch, EDF-I, Beta-I, Vepery, Chennai-7.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. __________Page 3 of 4

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

RPP 21-11-2025 __________Page 4 of 4