C. Shanmugavel vs Eswari

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No(s). 164-165 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No(s).9860-9861 of 2018)

C. SHANMUGAVEL Appellant(s)

VERSUS

ESWARI & ANR. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

(1) Leave granted.

(2) The appellant who is brother-in-law of the deceased-

Nachiappan being aggrieved by the order passed by the High

Court of Madras at Madurai Bench in Crl.R.C. (MD)No.508 of 2018

and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6978 of 2018 has preferred these appeals.

(3) The first respondent-Eswari is none other than the wife of

the deceased-Nachiappan. Nachiappan was operating a vehicle

407 Max Cab four wheeler bearing the registration No.TN 59 BJ

9491. Nachiappan was murdered on 27th September, 2017 regarding

which a case, Cr.No.202/17 of Kundrakudi P.S. was registered

under Sections 302, 364 and 379 I.P.C.

(4) The said vehicle was seized as the case property.

Initially the appellant has filed an application seeking Signature Not Verified

custody of the said vehicle and later on the first respondent Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2019.02.01 11:20:26 IST Reason:

has also filed the application seeking interim custody of the

said vehicle in her capacity as widow of the registered owner 2

of the vehicle, namely, Nachiappan. Before the Judicial

Magistrate, Karaikudi, on 7th November, 2017 the first

respondent has given ‘No Objection’ for handing over the said

vehicle to the appellant herein who is brother of the deceased-

Nachiappan and accordingly custody of the said vehicle was

handed over to the appellant.

(5) Subsequently, the first respondent withdrew her consent

and filed an application seeking custody of the said vehicle

for herself which application came to be allowed. On 11 th July,

2018 the Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, passed an order by

which the said vehicle was recovered from the appellant and

kept in custody of the Court till the disposal of the criminal

case. In the meantime, the appellant herein has filed the

revision before the High Court pointing out that there is a

dispute regarding the ownership of the said vehicle which was

dismissed by the High Court on 3rd September, 2018.

(6) It is stated that after dismissal of the revision on 17 th

September, 2018 the Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, has passed

an order to hand over the said vehicle to the first respondent.

(7) When the special leave petition came up for hearing on 26 th

November, 2018, this Court has issued notice and also directed

the appellant to deposit Rs.5,00,000/ (Rupees Five Lakhs)

before the Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi. In compliance of

the said order, the appellant has deposited an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) 3

(8) Mr. V. Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the first

respondent, has submitted that after the impugned order of the

High Court i.e. 3rd September, 2018, Judicial Magistrate,

Karikudi, has passed order dated 17th September, 2018 to hand

over the said vehicle to the first respondent copy of which has

been filed today before us. It was submitted at the Bar that

in view of the notice issued by this Court on 26th November,

2018, the Judicial Magistrate on 24th December, 2018 has

initiated the proceedings to seize the custody of the said

vehicle from the first respondent and to restore the vehicle

back to the court custody. It is stated that in compliance

with the order of the Judicial Magistrate, 407 Max Cab four

wheeler bearing the registration No.TN 59 BJ 9491 has been

seized from the possession of the first respondent on the very

next date i.e. 25th December, 2018 and the said vehicle is now

in court custody.

(9) It is pertinent to note that though these appeals by way

of special leave petitions were filed on 2nd November, 2018, the

appellant has not brought to the notice of this Court

subsequent developments that the Judicial Magistrate,

Karaikudi, has passed an order on 17th September, 2018 by which

the said vehicle has already been handed over to the first

respondent. Learned Judicial Magistrate was right in ordering

the return of the vehicle to the first respondent being wife of

the deceased Nachiappan.

4

(10) In such view of the matter, these appeals are dismissed

with the following directions and observations:

(i) The Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial

Magistrate, Karaikudi is directed to ensure restoration of

the custody of the vehicle 407 Max Cab four wheeler bearing

the registration No.TN 59 BJ 9491 to the first respondent-

Eswari w/o Late Nachiappan forthwith;

(ii) The Amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs)

deposited by the appellant before the Principal District

Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, be refunded to

the appellant.

..........................J. (R. BANUMATHI)

..........................J. (R. SUBHASH REDDY) NEW DELHI, JANUARY 28, 2019.