The court cannot interfere in the custody of case property in a criminal case and pass orders falling within the jurisdiction of the criminal court.

1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent Number 1 to release the vehicle bearing registration No. TDA 9788 seized by the respondent Number 1. It is interesting to note that the respondent No.1 is the State of Tamil Nadu, whereas, it is not disputed that the vehicle has been taken in custody by police in a crime and is the case property in criminal case.

2. The case set up by the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased the vehicle from the original owner and not being party to the crime, is entitled to release of the vehicle.

3. It is also the case of the petitioner that the application filed before the learned Magistrate for release of the vehicle was returned for want of necessary papers which are said to be on the file of this Court, in Crl. OP.No. 26192 of 2008.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that as the custody of the vehicle is not necessary for investigation of the case, the petitioner is entitled to return of the vehicle being its owner and the vehicle being in the custody of the police for number of years, its condition is deteriorated.

5. This writ petition is totally misconceived. The vehicle is a case property, therefore, its custody is to be regulated by the criminal court, where case is pending.

6. This Court under exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction cannot interfere in criminal investigation of the case, and pass order which squarely fall within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate of the criminal court dealing with the criminal case.

7. I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed. No costs.