Judicial Path Clarified: Magistrate to Decide on Seized Assets Under New BNSS Framework

The Madras High Court has issued a definitive order regarding the proper legal channel for individuals seeking the release of materials, devices, or funds seized by police. In a recent judgment, a division bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice P. Dhanabal clarified that any grievances regarding property seizures or frozen bank accounts must be directed to the Judicial Magistrate under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The Conflict: A Quest for Restoration of Assets

The dispute arose from petitions filed by Shankar, known as "Savukku Shankar," following police action in December 2025. The petitioner sought the unsealing of his office premises in Adambakkam, Chennai, as well as the return of various electronic devices, cameras, and documents. Furthermore, the petitioner requested the de-freezing of multiple bank accounts held by himself, an associate named Malathi, and the entity Savukku Consultants Private Limited .

The petitioner argued that much of the seized property was unconnected to the ongoing investigation. The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, countered that the investigating officer had already filed a mandatory report before the Magistrate Court, placing the matter squarely within the purview of the Magistrate’s oversight.

The New Standard of Procedural Compliance

The Court’s analysis emphasized the necessity of adhering to the newly enacted BNSS 2023. According to the bench, once a police report is filed, authorities must meticulously follow the procedures stipulated under Sections 105 , 106, and 107 of the BNSS.

By directing the petitioner to the Magistrate, the High Court reinforced the importance of the lower judiciary's role as the primary arbiter of procedural fairness in criminal investigations. This approach ensures that both the State and the aggrieved party are provided with a dedicated window to present their arguments in a structured, transparent manner.

Key Observations

The Court underscored the mandate for strict adherence to statutory procedures:

• On the duty to follow procedure: "Once the report is filed before the Magistrate under the relevant provisions of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNSS], the procedures as contemplated under Sections 105 , 106 and 107 of BNSS, as the case may be, are to be followed scrupulously."
• On the remedy for grievances: "The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Judicial Magistrate concerned seeking appropriate relief and on filing of any such petition, the Judicial Magistrate shall follow the procedures as contemplated under the BNSS and pass final orders on merits."
• On judicial expectations: "It is needless to state that both the parties have to co-operate for early disposal of the petition. In the event of non-cooperation, the same may be recorded by the Judicial Magistrate and appropriate orders are to be passed."

The Road Ahead: Implications for Future Litigation

The Court disposed of the writ petitions by granting the petitioner the liberty to file a formal request before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate has been instructed to handle these requests on their merits and as expeditiously as possible.

This ruling serves as a vital reminder to legal practitioners and citizens alike that the shift from the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to the BNSS framework requires strict compliance with new jurisdictional pathways. By decentralizing these disputes to the Magistrate Court, the High Court aims to prevent the clogging of the appellate docket and ensure that property-related grievances receive efficient, ground-level adjudication.