M.Sonaimuthu, v. The Sub-Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.08.2018

CORAM

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Crl.R.C.(MD) No.33 of 2018 M.Sonaimuthu

...Petitioner / Petitioner

Vs.

1. State through, The Sub Inspector of Police, Jaihindpuram Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.263/17) ...1st Respondent / Complainant 2.P.Suresh Kumar ...2nd Respondent/3rd party/3rd party PRAYER:Criminal Revision Petition - filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 30.10.2017 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3052 of 2017 by the Judicial Magistrate No.4, Madurai and to return the petitioner's car bearing Registration No.PY-01-BK-7599, the key and the original RC Book of the car to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : No Appearance For R1 : Mr.A.Robinson Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The revision petitioner herein is a Pawnbroker. He had purchased a vehicle bearing registration No.PY-01-BK-7599, from one P.Suresh Kumar / second respondent. Said vehicle has been seized by the police in Crime No.263 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent herein for the offences under Sections 379, 406, 420 and 506(i) IPC. The second respondent is one of the accused among the seven accused shown in FIR. The petitioner herein has filed application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for return of the vehicle. The trial Court after considering the rival claim of the revision petitioner herein and after perusing the RC Book which stands in the name of one Deepa, has dismissed the petition holding that neither the revision petitioner nor the second respondent herein is entitled to get the vehicle back pending disposal of the trial. Aggrieved by the same this revision case is filed.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the revision petitioner. He has not served

notice to the second respondent. On going through the records, this Court finds that the revision petitioner, claiming that he purchased the vehicle from the second respondent, seeks return of the vehicle. However, the vehicle stands in the name of Deepa, who is not before this Court.

3. In the above circumstances, the order of the trial Court is sustainable. No case has been made out to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, this Criminal Revision is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-III) To

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Jaihindpuram Police Station, Madurai District.

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

TA VB/SKN/SAR3/27.09.2018/2P/3C Crl.R.C.(MD) No.33 of 2018 28.08.2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/