1 WP.1466-2010.sxw acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITIOIN NO. 1466 OF 2010 Anupam Rohit Dubey ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. ----- Ms. Prbha Badadare, the Petitioners. Mr. Sushil Shukla, for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. Ms. P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for the State. ---- CORAM: M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 28, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4, and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Perused the impugned order. The learned Magistrate had refused to return the ornaments and cash to the complainant under the provision of Section 457 of Cr. P.C. The said order has been challenged before this court. The petitioner claims that the ornaments belonged to her and it was her Stridhan. 2 WP.1466-2010.sxw 3. I have gone through the F.I.R. The F.I.R. does not mention that offence under Section 406 of I.P.C. was committed by either of the accused. The statements of witnesses have been recorded during the course of investigation. The remand application also indicates so. However, no further statement of the complainant had been recorded to substantiate that the ornaments belonged to the complainant. In view thereof, there was no material before the learned Magistrate to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to possess the ornaments during the pendency of investigation and trial. Similarly, respondent nos. 2 to 4 are also not able to produce any material to show as to whom the ornaments belonged to. 4. In the circumstances, the proper course will be to decide this issue as the conclusion of trial under Section 452 of Cr. P.C. With this observation, the Writ Petition No.1466 of 2010 stands dismissed. Interim order, if any stands vacated. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) 3 WP.1466-2010.sxw