C. SHANMUGAVEL Vs ESWARI
Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
Judgment by: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000164-000165 / 2019
Diary number: 41840 / 2018
Advocates: K. KRISHNA KUMAR Vs
1
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
custody of the said vehicle and later on the first respondent
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 11th 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 17th
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 26th
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.