Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 111492 (MAD)

NAGASUNDARAM v. The State rep by The Inspector of Police

CRL RC/1998/2025 · 2025-10-10

T V Thamilselvi

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRL RC No. 1998 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-10-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRL RC No. 1998 of 2025 NAGASUNDARAM S/o. Soundarpandian, No.45/25A,Pillaiyar Koil Street, Edamalaipatti Pudur, Trichy-620012. Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep by The Inspector of Police V5-Thirumangalam Police Station, Chennai District. Crime No.451 of 2025. Respondent(s) PRAYER:- Criminal Revision Case filed under Sec.397 r/w Sec.401 of Cr.P.C./Sec.438 r/w Sec.442 of BNSS, praying to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.13499 of 2025 in Crime No. 451 of 2025 on the file of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1998 of 2025 For Petitioner(s): Mr. U.Kathiravan For Respondent(s): Dr.C.E.Pratap, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order dated 26.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No.13499 of 2025 in Crime No.451 of 2025 by the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, thereby dismissing the petition filed for return of the property, viz., a Mobile phone (IQOO NEO Pro 7 5G Cellphone). 2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused in Crime No.451 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 78, 79 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, alleging that the petitioner harassed the defacto complainant The respondent seized the petitioner's mobile phone and produced the same before the Trial Court. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition seeking return of the property. However, the same was dismissed on the ground that the cellphone is a prime evidence and it has to be sent to forensic laboratory for examination. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for respondent appeared and submitted that investigation and final report was filed. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1998 of 2025 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. A perusal of the records reveals that the mobile phone was seized from the petitioner and the same was deposited before the Trial Court. The said mobile phone owned by the petitioner have nothing to do with the alleged offence and as on date, the investigation completed and final report was also filed. Therefore, the findings of trial judge holding that the cellphone is a prime evidence and it has to be sent to forensic laboratory for examination is not a valid ground to retain the mobile phone in this case. 6. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to order the return of the mobile phone to the petitioner. Accordingly, the order dated 26.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No.13499 of 2025 by the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, is hereby set aside. The XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai is directed to return the mobile phone viz.,IQOO NEO Pro 7 5G Cellphone, to the petitioner, forthwith on the following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate to the credit of Crime No.451 of 2024 pending on the file of the respondent police. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1998 of 2025 (ii) the petitioner shall deposit the original invoice or bill of the phone and the original registration certificate of the two- wheeler before the concerned Magistrate. (iii) the seized items should be photographed at the cost of the petitioner herein and a list is to be prepared and the same is to be signed by the petitioner. (iv) the petitioner shall not alienate and shall not make any alteration in the mobile and the two-wheeler. (v) the petitioner shall produce the mobile and the two- wheeler before the Court and the respondent police as and when required; (vi) If any of the conditions are violated, this order automatically stands cancelled. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands allowed. 10-10-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No rpp 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1998 of 2025 To 1. XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police V5-Thirumangalam Police Station, Chennai District. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 1998 of 2025 T.V.THAMILSELVI J. rpp CRL RC No. 1998 of 2025 10-10-2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis