Crl.R.C.No.999 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.07.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

Crl.R.C.No.999 of 2023

Saravanan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State Rep. by

the Inspector of Police,

City Crime Branch Police Station,

Coimbatore.

... Respondent

(Crime No.11/2023)

Prayer : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of

Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order passed in

Crl.M.P.No.17764 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate

Court-VII, Coimbatore, dated 05.05.2023.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.|Narayana Prasadh

For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinothraja, GA (Crl. Side)

ORDER

Challenging the orders dated 05.05.2023, passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate Court-VII, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.17764 of 2023,

the present Criminal Revision is filed.

Page 1 of 6

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

Crl.R.C.No.999 of 2023

2. The revision petitioner has filed the petition under Sections

451 r/w. 457 of Cr.P.C, in Crl.M.P.No.17764 of 2023, seeking return of

the mobile phone to him.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant

was introduced to the revision petitioner/accused A.K.Saravanan and his

family members by one Sundaramoorthy, Divisional Engineer of

Highways Department of Salem stating that the accused is running a firm

in the name and style of Sree Saravana Constructions Company at Palani.

The said Sundaramoorthy, Divisional Engineer of Highways Department

induced the defacto complainant to join the accused as partner in the firm

and also insisted him to invest in the Partnership firm to get contract in

the Highways Department. Accordingly, the defacto complainant, his son

and his brother invested a sum of Rs.54,68,50,000/- by way of multiple

transactions through bank and also by paying cash. However, the

accused failed to give either profits or return the capital as agreed as per

their Memorandum of Understanding. Hence, the defacto complainant

lodged a complaint with the respondent Police.

Page 2 of 6

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

Crl.R.C.No.999 of 2023

4. During the course of investigation, it came to light that the

the revision petitioner / A1 namely A.K.Saravanan had received Police

summons and the case oriented communication from one Arangarajan

S/o. Chidambaram who is presently working as a Chief Manager of

Canara bank, Palani Branch. Therefore, the said Aranganathan was

issued with summons by the investigating officer. After enquiry, it also

came to light that the said Aranganathan, Chief Manager of Canara Bank

had taken screenshots of the Police summons and other case related

documents in his mobile phone and forwarded the same to the petitioner's

iPhone. Therefore, the investigating officer seized the mobile phone of the

accused and registered an FIR in Crime No.11/2023 against

Aranganathan for the offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 406,

409, 468, 471, 420, 506 (1) I.P.C., r/w. 34 IPC.,

5. When the matter is taken up, Ms.P.Renuga Devi, Inspector

of police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore is present before this Court.

Page 3 of 6

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

Crl.R.C.No.999 of 2023

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

7. Mr.P.Narayana Prasadh, learned counsel for the petitioner

contended that the present revision petitioner is not at all involved in the

offence and that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The learned

counsel further contended that no prejudice would be caused to the

prosecution, if the iPhone is returned to the petitioner.

8. Per contra, Mr.R.Vinothraja, learned Government advocate

(Crl. Side) contended that the Police officials sought some information

with regard to the bank transaction of A1 and A3 in connection with

Crime No.11/2023 and at the point of time, the Chief Manager took

screen