Crl.R.C.No.704 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.06.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. SIVAGNANAM

CRL.R.C.No.704 of 2023

N.Nagarajendran

... Petitioner

Vs.

State rep.by

The Inspector of Police,

Thuraipakkam Police Station

Chennai.

(Crime No.13/2023)

... Respondent

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. to

call for records and set aside the order dated 17.03.2023 made in

Crl.M.P.No.395 of 2023 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Alandur.

For Petitioner

: Mr. M.Vignesh for

M/s.S.Syed Mazhar Hayath

For Respondent

: Mr. R. Vinothraja,

Government Advocate (Crl.side)

*****

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.704 of 2023

ORDER

Challenging the order dated 17.03.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.395 of

2023 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Alandur, this Criminal Revision

Case has been filed.

2

The petitioner, who is an Youtuber, has without prior approval

indulged in unauthorised Drone video shooting of World Trade Centre,

Perungudi, Chennai. Hence the Assistant General Manager, Facility Head,

World Trade Centre, has lodged a complaint against the petitioner, based on

which the respondent police registered a case against the petitioner in

Cr.No.13/2023 for the offence under Sections 287 and 336 of IPC and they

have also seized the Drone, which involved in unauthorised video shooting of

World Trade Centre, Perungudi, Chennai. Since the petitioner is the owner of

the Drone, he filed a petition in Crl.MP.No.395 of 2023 before the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.II, Alandur, for return of property. The trial court

dismissed the petition considering the objection made by the respondent to

return the property.

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.704 of 2023

3

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no purpose

will be served in keeping the property under the custody of respondent police

and if the Drone is kept idle for a long time, it would cause damage to the

property and also would depreciate its value and user capacity. The petitioner

is ready to give appropriate guarantee as well as security for return of the

property and also he will produce the same, as and when required either before

the respondent police or before the trial court. Hence, he prayed to return the

property and he is ready to obey any condition imposed on him by this Court.

5

The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) objected to return of

property, stating that the same was used for unauthorised Drone video

shotting and if the property is ordered to be returned, he may use the same for

committing same offence. He fairly conceded that the petitioner has not

involved in any previous case of similar in nature.

6

Heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on

record.

7

A perusal of the records would reveal that a complaint was given

3/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.704 of 2023

by one M.Nagaraj, Assistant General Manager, Facility Head, World Trade

Centre, Perungudi, Chennai, stating that the petitioner has without prior

approval indulged in unauthorised Drone video shooting of World Trade

Centre, Perungudi, Chennai, which is highly prohibited by the policy of the

office. Pursuant to which, a case has been registered by the respondent police

on 14.01.2023 in Cr.No.13 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 287 and

336 of IPC and Drone has also been seized.

8

Perusal of records would further reveal that the petitioner is the

owner of property and he is ready to give guarantee and security for returning

the property. If the Drone is being kept idle, it would cause damage to the

property and the value of the property is diminished. Further, the Honourable

Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and others

Vs.State of Gujarat in Special Leave Petition (crl.) 2745 of 2022 dated

01.10