1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.668 of 2011 Pasuvathi ...Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, New Natham Road, Madurai. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District. 3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nilakottai Range, Dindigul District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Nilakottai Police Station, Dindigul District. 5.The Sub Inspector of Police, Nilakottai Police Station, Dindigul District. ...Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondent No.4 to release the Hero Honda motor cycle belongs to the petitioner's son Pandian, bearing Registration No.TN 59 AK 5587 kept under illegal custody in Nilakottai Police Station forthwith. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.L.Murugan, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction against the 4th respondent to release the Hero Honda motor cycle belongs to the petitioner's son Pandian, bearing Registration No.TN 59 AK 5587 kept under illegal custody in Nilakottai Police Station forthwith. 2. Heard Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner, is the mother of one Pandian, who is the owner of a Hero Honda Splendor bearing Registration No.TN 59 AK 5587 and the registration certificate is produced and the said vehicle has been seized by the 4th respondent police and it was kept in illegal custody un open air on and from 07.07.2010 and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petitioner's son had not involved in any case and he had lent the motor cycle to one of his friends viz., Ganesan and he took the vehicle and if any offence is committed by the said Ganesan, the petitioner's son shall not be penalised by putting the vehicle in custody. 4.He would further submit in his argument that the petitioner had given a representation about the illegal custody of the vehicle with the 4th respondent and the said representation was not considered. He would further submit that a direction may be issued to the 4th respondent police to handover the said vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 59 AK 5587 kept in illegal custody of the Nilakottai Police Station, to the petitioner's son Pandian. 5.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in his argument that the said Motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN 59 AK 5587 was neither seized nor kept in the Nilakottai Police Station in connection with any case. He would further submit that the said Ganesan was arrested on 07.07.2010 at 5.00 P.M. and the allegation of the petitioner that the vehicle was handed over to the said Ganesan at 11.30 P.M. on 07.07.2010 and therefore, the version of the petitioner that the vehicle was handed over to Ganesan is totally incorrect. He would further submit that the petitioner's son Pandian is involved in crime No.29 of 2010 under Section 457 and 511 I.P.C. on the file of Ponnamaravathi Police Staiton and the investigation would reveal that he is involved in many offences at various places and in order to prevent the enquiry on the petitioner's son, the present petition has been filed. He would therefore request the Court to dismiss the petition. 6.I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by both sides. 7.The petitioner's claim is that his son Pandian is owning a vehicle (motor cycle) bearing Registration No.TN 59 AK 5587, which is a Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle. The registration certificate is produced. On a careful perusal of the registration certificate, one Pandian is the owner of the said vehicle subject to the hypothecation made to a finance company. No doubt allegation that the said vehicle was seized and placed in the custody of the 4th respondent Police station, is denied by the 4th respondent. The case of the petitioner was to the effect that the said vehicle was handed over to the said Ganesan and a case has been registered against the said Ganesan and the vehicle was seized by the police. Actually, the police filed a counter stating that the vehicle has not been seized nor in the custody of the police. If really, the vehicle has been handed over to the said Ganesan by the petitioner's son Pandian and it was taken by the Ganesan either for commission of an offence or for his personal use, the complaint should have been filed before the jurisdictional police to find out the vehicle and to hand over it to the petitioner's son. But, it has been put forth by the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 that the vehicle has been seized by the police and is kept in the police custody. But, it is denied by the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) that it was not seized. The petitioner's son Pandian, who is said to be the owner of the said vehicle had not come to Court, but had set up his mother to come before this Court for getting an order in the hands of this Court. When the petitioner is not the owner of the property and the vehicle has not been seized by the police, the petition itself is not sustainable. 8.Moreover, the petitioner's son Pandian is said to have involved in number of cases including a case pending before Ponnamaravathy Police Station in crime No.29 of 2010 and is being searched in this case. The argument that the present petition has been filed through the mother of the said Pandian with a view to stall the proceedings against the said Pandiyan cannot be simply brushed aside. Therefore, I find no reason to allow this petition and to direct the 4th respondent to hand over the vehicle since it is not available in the custody of the police. However, the petitioner's son Pandian is at liberty to present a complaint before the 4th respondent police for tracing the vehicle belongs to him and the 4th respondent police is directed to receive such a complaint and to proceed in accordance with law. 9.With the above said observation, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(w) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, New Natham Road, Madurai. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District. 3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nilakottai Range, Dindigul District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Nilakottai Police Station,Dindigul District. 5.The Sub Inspector of Police, Nilakottai Police Station, Dindigul District. 6.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +1cc to Mr.R.Alagumani, Advocate, Sr.No.5056 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.668 of 2011 arul/SMA/2.3.2011/8C/3P 08.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/