THE COURT HELD THAT IT IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO RETURN THE CASH TO THE PETITIONER AT THIS STAGE. THE CRIMINAL REVISION STANDS DISMISSED. HOWEVER, LIBERTY IS GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER TO RENEW THE APPLICATION AFTER THE COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATION.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.01.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

Criminal Revision Case No.1085 of 2021

Nazar

...Petitioner

..Vs..

The State rep by Inspector of Police,

Maharahakadai Police Station,

Krishnagiri District,

(Crime No.89 of

2021)

...Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Miscellaneous petitions filed under Section 397

r/w 401 of Cr.P.C to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.3370 of

2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Krishnagiri and

set aside the same subsequently grant interim custody a sum of

Rs.10,00,000/-(Ten Lakhs).

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sudhakar

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision case has been filed against

the order dated 31.08.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.3373 of 2021 in

C.C.No.63 of 2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate II,

Krishnagiri, dismissing the application seeking for return of

cash.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the accused in the guise of doubling money and giving

additional amount, had cheated an amount of Rs.80 lakhs. On

the complaint given by the petitioner's friend, a case in Crime

No.89 of 2021 has been registered against one Rajesh and five

others for the offences under Sections 415, 417, 170 and 420 of

I.P.C. Pending investigation, the petitioner had filed an

application seeking for return of cash and the learned Judge

holding that the investigation is pending and that the

petitioner has not produced any documents to prove that the

cash belongs to him, had dismissed the application. Learned

counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the

petitioner is a trader engaged in the business of dealing with

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

wholesale vegetables and he is also a commission agent and

thereby he was having cash. The petitioner had also produced the

copies of the bills.

3. Per contra, Mr.S.Sugendran, learned Government

Advocate (crl.side) for the respondent would submit that the

friend of the petitioner had given a complaint as if the accused

had cheated him in the guise of doubling the amount. He would

submit that the investigation is still pending and the

respondents are taking steps to find out the real owner of the

cash. He would further submit that the complaint was given by one

Chandrakumar and a case in Crime No. 89 of 2021 has been

registered for the offence under Sections 415, 417, 170 and 420

of I.P.C. As per the defacto-complainant, the accused in the

guise of giving additional amount, had taken Rs.80,00,000/- and

cheated him. He would submit that the investigation is pending

and since the amount is huge, the respondents are taking steps to

find out the real owner of the amount. Further, the petitioner

had not filed any documents before the Trial Court to prove that

the money belongs to him and thereby the Trial Court had

dismissed the petition. He would further reiterate that the

investigation is pending. At this stage, if the amount is

returned to the petitioner, it would affect the investigation and

there is no error and infirmity in the order.

5. Heard the counsels on either side and perused the

materials available on record.

6. The Trial Court finding that the petitioner had

not produced sufficient proof, had dismissed the application and

it is also reported by the respondent that investigation is

pending. This Court is of the opinion that it is not conducive to

return the cash to the petitioner at this stage. The criminal

revision stands dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the

petitioner to renew the application after the completion of

investigation.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

/True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

vri/snk

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Krishnagiri

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/