1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 28.09.2011 Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice S.PALANIVELU Crl.R.C.(MD).No.830 of 2011 M.Annapoorani .. Petitioner/Accused vs. 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.C.I.W.- CID, Madurai. 2.The Liquidator, 28, Madurai Urban Co-operative Bank, Madurai. .. Respondent/Complainant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for records and may be pleased to set aside the impugned order passed in Cr.M.P.No.2699 of 2011, dated 31.05.2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai and direct the respondent to release the original title deed in respect property situated in Old Survey No.14/3, New Survey No.25/4, D.No.5/217, at Kanagavel Colony, T.Athikulam, Madurai North, Thallakulam Sub Registrar, Madurai District. For Petitioner : M/s.M.Ramu For Respondent 1 : Mr.P.Kandasamy, Government Advocate (Crl.side) For Respondent 2 : M/s.T.Lajapathi Roy ORDER This Criminal Revision is preferred to call for records and to set aside the impugned order passed in Cr.M.P.No.2699 of 2011, dated 31.05.2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai and direct the respondent to release the original title deed in respect of the property situated in Old Survey No.14/3, New Survey No.25/4, D.No.5/217, at Kanagavel Colony, T.Athikulam, Madurai North, Thallakulam Sub Registrar, Madurai District. 2. The petitioner is one among the witnesses in C.C.No.71 of 2009, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai. She filed an application before the Court below stating that she got a loan of Rs.4,98,000/- in 1999 from the second respondent bank, for which, she mortgaged her house by equitable mortgage by depositing the original title deed. She deposited the original title deed of the house with the second respondent bank. The bank become insolvent because of the misdeeds of the then bank officials. Hence, a case was registered and all the records were seized and they were produced before the Court in which the title deed deposited by the petitioner is one among them. The petitioner discharged the entire loan amount and hence, the title deed may be directed to be returned to her. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. In the counter it is stated that the petitioner was sanctioned a loan of Rs.4,98,000/- and actually she was paid a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- by the then Secretary by name Mayan and this petitioner has also given statement in the enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. In this stage, if the document is returned to the petitioner, it is not desirable and valid evidence would not come from the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner may be dismissed. 4. After hearing both sides, the Court below has dismissed the application by observing that if the document is returned back to the petitioner, her evidence in the trial would not support the prosecution and that she has not mentioned the purpose for which the document is required. 5. Mr.M.Ramu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already discharged the entire loan amount which is evident from the receipt issued by the second respondent on 02.03.2011 and that there is no outstanding in the bank account in the name of the petitioner. The receipt issued by the second respondent on 02.03.2011 would show that the mortgage loan along with interest totalling Rs.9,93,000/- was paid by the petitioner on various occasions and hence, the entire loan has been discharged by the petitioner. 6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the first respondent would contend that if the document is returned to the petitioner, she may not support the case of prosecution. But, the apprehension is not reasonable. 7. In view of the discharge receipt issued by the second respondent bank on 02.03.2011, this Court is of the considered view that it is no longer necessary to retain the title deed belonging to the petitioner and a condition may be imposed on the petitioner that the original deed shall be replaced by certified copy of the sale deed. With the above condition, the criminal revision has to be allowed. In the result, the criminal revision case is allowed directing the petitioner to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) and also produce certified copy of the sale deed before getting return of the original sale deed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI Act) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Judicial Magistrate No.III,Madurai. Copy to: The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. +1cc to Mr.M.Ramu, Advocate SR.No.33599 +1cc to Mr.T.Lajapathiroy, Advocate SR.No.33937 Crl.RC.(MD).No.830 of 2011 28.09.2011 srm PA/29.09.2011/2P/5C(IT) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/