A.Ishwarya v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI A.Ishwarya ... Petitioner / Petitioner / Owner of the vehicle Vs.

State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Karambakkudi Police Station, Karambakkudi Taluk, Pudukottai District.

... Respondent/ Respondent / Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 08.04.2025 made in Cr.M.P.No.223 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Karambakkudi, Pudukkottai.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Atham Ali For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj, Government Advocate

ORDER

Challenging the order passed the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Karambakkudi, Pudukkottai, in Crl.M.P.No.223 of 2025, dated 1/5

08.04.2025, this Criminal Revision case is filed.

2. The petitioner had filed an application seeking the return of her vehicle, viz., Swift Desire Car bearing registration No. TN 01 AJ 1338, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Karambakkudi, Pudukkottai. However, the learned Trial Court had dismissed the same, recording the fact that as many as 24 crimes, more particularly, for the offences under Section 379 of IPC, is pending as against the petitioner's husband and the vehicle involved in two previous cases. Challenging the same, this Criminal Revision case is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, except this case and another case, there is no other cases pending as against the car as well as the petitioner at all. The petitioner is the owner of the car. The other 24 cases are pending as against the petitioner's husband and not against her and hence, this Criminal Revision case may be allowed.

4. The learned Government Advocate has filed a counter affidavit, and on the basis of it, submitted that the petitioner's husband is a 2/5

habitual thief who has made use of his wife's car in two of the previous offenses. In view of the same, this Criminal Revision case should be necessarily dismissed.

5. Heard the learned counsels on both sides and carefully perused the materials available on record.

6. I am of the considered view that this is a case of the offense where the vehicle in question is used for the offences under Section 379 of IPC. If the vehicle is released, I am sure the same will be used for another offence. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and I don't find any infirmity in the same.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision case is dismissed. No costs. 18.07.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Sml 3/5

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Karambakkudi, Pudukkottai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Karambakkudi Police Station, Karambakkudi Taluk, Pudukottai District.

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

4/5

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J., Sml 18.07.2025 5/5