IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.03.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.29676 of 2022 and Crl.MP.Nos.18178 & 18180 of 2022

1.RAMESH

2.CHANDHIRASEKAR ... Petitioners Vs.

1.STATE REP BY, THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UTHUKULI POLICE STATION, TIRUPUR DISTRICT

2.KARTHIKEYAN ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in CC No.88 of 2020 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Uthukuli and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Padmanabhan For Respondents For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate(crl.side)

For R2 : No appearance

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed praying to quash the proceedings in CC No.88 of 2020 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Uthukuli

2. The second respondent lodged complaint before the first respondent and the same was registered in crime No.48 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC on the allegation that petitioners illegally transported small stones without any valid permit. After completion of investigation, final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and summons were issued to the petitioner.

3. On perusal of the records and on the submissions of the learned Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the first respondent, it is revealed that admittedly the first petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and the second petitioner is the driver of the vehicle by which they transported block stones to the tune of 4 units in their vehicle i.e. lorry. Though the petitioners had no permit to transport the stones, it would not amount to theft. It is relevant to read the definition of theft as follows:

378. Theft Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

4. Thus, it is clear that moving of one’s movable property within the possession of that person, without the said person’s consent, would amount to theft. Even according to the respondents, without any permit, the petitioners transported rough stones owned by themselves from their property to other place. Therefore, it would not amount to theft. Further, the trial court had taken cognizance in rubber stamp order without stating any valid reason to take cognizance. It shows non application of mind of the trial court while taking cognizance. Therefore, the entire proceedings against the petitioners cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed.

5. Accordingly, the entire proceedings in CC No.88 of 2020 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Uthukuli is quashed and this criminal original petition stands allowed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

16.03.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order lok G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

lok To

1. The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Uthukuli

2.STATE REP BY, THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UTHUKULI POLICE STATION, TIRUPUR DISTRICT

16.03.2026