← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/20221/2025allowed

Kannammal v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, K.Paramathi

2025-11-18Honourable Mr Justice Sunder Mohan6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.11.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Kannammal ... Petitioner Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, K.Paramathy Police Station, Karur District.

(Crime No.115 of 2022) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the Show Cause Notice issued by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karur bearing D.No.6347/5/Judl/Sess dated 31.10.2025 and all other further proceedings of the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anantha Padmanaban, Sr. Counsel for Dr.R.Alagumani For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 31.10.2025 issued by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karur, calling upon the petitioner Page No. 1 of 6

to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, which is the amount mentioned in the bond executed while releasing the vehicle.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are as follows:

(i) The petitioner's vehicle, bearing Regn.No.TN47 BY 2877 was seized during the course of the investigation in Cr.No.115 of 2022 since the vehicle was used by the accused (petitioner's son) for commission of the offences under Sections 302, 201, 109, 120(b) r/w 34 of the IPC. (ii) The petitioner is not an accused in the said case. The petitioner had filed an application for return of the vehicle, which was ordered by this Court in Crl.RC.(MD) No.27 of 2024 dated 15.02.2024 inter alia on the condition that the petitioner shall not alienate or modify the vehicle in any manner and should produce it as and when required by the trial Court.

(iii) It appears that thereafter the petitioner was called upon to produce the vehicle by the trial Court. Since the trial Court found that the petitioner's vehicle was modified, he has issued a show cause notice Page No. 2 of 6

calling upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, failing which action would be taken. The said show cause notice is impugned in this petition.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not an accused; that after the vehicle was returned to the petitioner's custody, the petitioner had misplaced her RC book; that she had applied for duplicate copy to the Regional Transport Office; that since she had to produce the vehicle in a good condition, she had carried out minor repairs; that she had produced the vehicle as required by the learned Sessions Judge for the purpose of trial; and that the learned Judge had observed that the petitioner had violated the condition that she should not alter the vehicle and issued the impugned show cause notice, which cannot be sustained.

4. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent, who, on instructions, would confirm that the petitioner had only carried out repairs to the vehicle and that there was no alteration of the vehicle; and that, in fact, the petitioner had produced the vehicle when she was directed to do so on 01.08.2025. Page No. 3 of 6

5. Admittedly, the petitioner's vehicle before it was returned to her was lying at the police station for nearly three years. Therefore, it cannot be said that repairs were not required for plying the vehicle. Even according to the respondent the petitioner had only carried out the repairs and not altered the vehicle in any manner. It is also seen that the petitioner had to make necessary repairs and obtain a duplicate copy of the R.C. Book from the Regional Transport Office, which would require the vehicle to be maintained in good condition. It is also seen that photographs of the vehicle were taken before its return to the petitioner.

6. The condition not to modify the vehicle cannot be construed literally. Admittedly, the petitioner had produced the vehicle on the summons issued by the trial Court. Therefore, this Court sees no reason to hold that the petitioner had violated the condition imposed by the trial Court and is inclined to quash the impugned show cause notice.

7. Accordingly, the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 31.10.2025 issued by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karur, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Page No. 4 of 6

18.11.2025 JEN/ars Index: Yes/ No Copy To:

1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karur.

2.The Inspector of Police, K.Paramathy Police Station, Karur District.

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

Page No. 5 of 6

SUNDER MOHAN , J.

JEN/ars 18.11.2025 Page No. 6 of 6