Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 309
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
Murugan
Versus
State Re. By The Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi
Criminal Revision Case (MD) No. 17 of 2013
Decided On: 11-01-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:A. Thiruvadikumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: P. Kandasamy, G.A.(Crl. Side).
The court emphasized the need for quick and expeditious exercise of power under Cr.P.C. 451, ensuring the owner does not suffer, and the property is not misappropriated.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision - Vehicle Ownership Dispute - Cr.P.C. 451, 457 - Sections 147, 148 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of T.N.P.P.D.L. Act
Fact of the Case:
The owner of a vehicle filed a petition seeking the return of his burnt car from the police, which was dismissed by the trial court. The petitioner appealed, arguing that the reasons for dismissal were incorrect in the eye of the law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's dismissal was not tenable and suffered from material irregularity and patent illegality. It set aside the order and directed the trial court to return the vehicle to the petitioner, following specific procedures and principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
Issues: Dispute over the return of a burnt vehicle, application of Cr.P.C. 451 and 457, and the authority of the trial court to make such orders during the investigation stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for quick and expeditious exercise of power under Cr.P.C. 451, ensuring the owner does not suffer, and the property is not misappropriated. It also highlighted the trial court's authority to impose conditions for the return of the vehicle, as well as the precedence of the registered owner over the financier in interim custody matters.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition was allowed, the trial court's order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to return the vehicle to the petitioner, following specific procedures and principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
1. The Petitioner/owner of the vehicle has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 30.08.2012 in Cr.M.P.No.4753 of 2010 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tuticorin.
2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tuticorin, while passing the order dated 30.08.2012 in Cr.M.P.No.4753 of 2010 has inter alia observed that the Petitioner/owner of the vehicle has prayed for the return of the vehicle to him with a view to receive the insurance amount and further in case, the vehicle/car is to be handed over to the Petitioner, then there is a possibility of non production of the same when the Court requires it for production of the same and further, the Petitioner has not produced the original Registration book of the vehicle etc., and resultantly, dismissed the petition.
3. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/owner of the vehicle submits that the Petitioner is the registered owner of the Tata Indica car bearing Registration No.TN 57 AC 1490 and that the Petitioner filed Cr.M.P.No.4753 of 2010 praying for issuance of an order by the trial Court to handover the car in question. However, the trial Court has dismissed the said miscellaneous petition assigning reasons which are not correct in the eye of Law. Therefore, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner/owner of the vehicle prays for allowing the Criminal Revision filed by him as against the order dated 30.08.2012 in Cr.M.P.No.4753 of 2010 passed by the trial Court to promote substantial cause of justice.
4. This Court has heard the Learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the Respondent/Police.
5. In the affidavit in Cr.M.P.No.4753 of 2010, the Petitioner/owner of the vehicle has among other things averred that his friend Martyn on 11.01.2012 has taken the Tata Indica vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 57 AC 1490 for taking part in the funeral rights of one Pasupathi Pandian at Alangarathattu village in Tuticorin District and at that time, the said car has been set fire to by the anti-social elements and in that process, the entire vehicle has been burnt. Also, the Village Administrative Officer has given a complaint before the North Police Station. On that basis, the Respondent Police has registered a case under Sections 147 and 148 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of T.N.P.P.D.L. Act. Ultimately, the Petitioner has prayed for return of the vehicle in question to him for the purpose of carrying out repairs, inasmuch as, he has handed over the said vehicle.
6. Admittedly, the Petitioner/owner of the vehicle has filed miscellaneous petition, praying for the return of car in question to him under Section 451 read with 457 of Cr.P.C. Also, it is represented before this Court that the car has not been produced by the Police before the Court and the same is lying in the police station.
7. It is to be noted that Section 451 of Cr.P.C. will come into operative play as regards the custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. For disposal of property under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., it is essential that the car in question ought to be under the control of the Magistrate. No wonder, the orders passed by a Court of Law both under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., are during the pendency of trial or enquiry. The proceedings of investigation are not within the ambit of either enquiry or trial. As such, the Court is not competent to pass orders under these sections at this stage of investigation.
8. The power under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., must be exercised by a Court of Law in a quick and expeditious manner bearing in mind (i) the owner of the vehicle should not suffer because of remaining unused or by its misappropriation. (ii)The Court or police would not be required to keep the articles in safe custody. And (3)If proper panchnama before handing over possession of the vehicle is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If need be, evidence should also be re
