The main legal point established is that the police have no power to seize immovable property under Section 102 Cr.P.C., as supported by relevant case law.

The petitioner filed this Criminal Revision Case, challenging the order of dismissal of petitioner's application, filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C., seeking for returning of certain documents seized by the respondent police.

2. The fact of the case, in brief, is as follows:-

“The petitioner is the wife of one Samuel, and he is an accused in CCB Crime No.2600 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 406, 419, 420, 468, 471 and 472 IPC. At the time of arrest of her husband, the respondent police seized some original sale deeds stands in her name from her house, which is nothing to do with the above said crime. In the above circumstances, she filed a Petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for returning of the above original sale deeds. The Court below dismissed the said petition, stating that as per the prosecution, all the above properties were purchased by the accused using the amount cheated from the public and the above question could be decided only at the time of trial and not at the stage of investigation, in the said circumstances, the documents cannot be returned to the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case has been filed.”

3. The respondent police filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the petitioner's husband one Samuel along with two other persons claiming as an employee of Tamil Nadu Housing Board, issued fake house site allotment orders to various public and collected huge amount cheated them. Hence, a complaint was filed against them and based on the above complaint, a case has been registered in CCB Crime No. 2600 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 406, 419, 420, 468, 471 and 472 IPC. Thereafter, all the accused were arrested and A1,the husband of the petitioner, during investigation confessed that he has purchased the properties in the name of the petitioner, by using the cheated amount received from the defacto complainant and other victims and based on the above statement, the above said documents were recovered from his house. More than Rs.1 crore has been collected by the above accused by issuing fake Housing Board allotment orders, and A-1 has purchased the above properties out of the cheated amount, and the investigation is pending.

4. I have heard Mr. Yusuf Esi. Q for M/s. Nathan and Associates, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R. Ravichandran, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent police and Mr. Anand Venkatesh as amicus curie and perused the materials available on record.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is not an accused in the criminal case, and admittedly the sale deeds are stands in her name. In the above circumstances, the respondent police can not seize the properties belongs to her. Even under Section 102 Cr.P.C., the respondent police has no power to seize the immovable property. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying upon the Hon'ble Full Bench Judgment of the Bombay High Court in Crl.W.P.No.3198 of 2009 dated 29.11.2010 (Sudhir Vasanth Karnataki Vs. The State of Maharashtra) reported in 2010 SCC Online Bombay 1808 and the Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.11221 of 2015 (V. Sundaram Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police & Anr.) dated 27.07.2015.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is the wife of the first accused and the first accused along with two other persons have cheated the general public by issuing fake Housing Board allotment orders and during the investigation A-1 also confessed that the above properties had been purchased in the name of the petitioner using the amount collected from the public and since the investigation is still pending, the documents cannot be returned to the petitioner at this stage. The learned Government Advocate (Crtl. Side) appearing for the respondent relying upon the judgment of the Hon'b