WP CRL.(MD). No.389 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 20/11/2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN WP CRL.(MD). No.389 of 2025 D.Senthil ... Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep by its, The Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, Tiruchirappalli-620 020. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, O/o.Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, Tiruchirappalli-620 020. 3.The Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station Crime, Ammamandapam Road, Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli-620 006. 4.Thangavel The Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station Crime, Trichy City, Tiruchirappalli. 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP CRL.(MD). No.389 of 2025 Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents No.1 and take action against the fourth respondent i.e., Investigation Officer, who misappropriated the theft Gold Ornaments to a tune of 33 sovereign Gold and for failing to produce the same along with the recovered cash of Rs.9,000/- and the RC book of petitioner's car bearing registration TN-10-AJ-4242 before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Srirangam, considering the petitioner's advocate legal notice dated 10.01.2025 and take steps to return the said properties to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Nagarajan, For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER The petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the fourth respondent, the investigation officer, who had misappropriated gold ornaments weighing 33 sovereigns of gold, which he had recovered during the course of investigation in Crime No.487 of 2019. 2.It is a case of the petitioner that on 30.09.2019, when he went to park his car outside a temple in Srirangam and returned after 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP CRL.(MD). No.389 of 2025 worshipping, he found the rear left window glass of the car was broken; that the gold ornaments weighing 33 sovereigns, cash of Rs.14,000/- and the original RC book were missing; that an FIR was registered in Crime No.487 of 2019; and that the respondents police had filed a final report, which is now pending trial in C.C.No. 98 of 2025. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Srirangam. 3.The claim of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent, the Inspector of Police, who conducted the investigation, had seized the entire stolen property, including 33 sovereigns of gold jewels and cash and misappropriated the same; that the stolen articles were not produced before the learned Magistrate; that therefore, action should be taken against the investigation officer. 4.This Court while admitting the writ petition, had directed the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli, to file a report and also directed the fourth respondent to file a counter affidavit. 5.The report of the Commissioner of Police shows that a portion of 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP CRL.(MD). No.389 of 2025 the stolen articles, namely 5 sovereigns of gold, was seized and the fourth respondent could not produce it before the learned Magistrate due to the subsequent pandemic period and lockdown; that the fourth respondent was transferred to the Palakkarai Police station on 04.08.2021 and later retired on 30.04.2023; that before his transfer, he did not hand over the stolen jewels; that the fourth respondent is now suffering from a paralytic stroke and the jewels were not handed over to the succeeding investigating officer; that the recovered jewels unfortunately were mixed up with other gold ornaments, which were later identified by the third respondent and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate. 6.It is therefore clear from the report of the Commissioner of Police that the fourth respondent had committed temporary misappropriation of the jewels said to have been seized by him. The fourth respondent ought to have immediately deposited the jewels with the learned Judicial Magistrate. The seizure is said to have made on 19.10.2019. The COVID-19 pandemic and lock down came much later. Even thereafter, the fourth respondent had chosen not to hand over the jewels. It is also not known how the recovered jewels got mixed up with 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP CRL.(MD). No.389 of 2025 other gold ornaments. The Commissioner of Police may take suitable action against the officer concerned in this regard. 7.Be that as it may, the final report is not clear as to whether the allegation of the petitioner that 33 sovereigns of gold jewels were stolen is true or false. Admittedly, only 5 sovereigns of gold jewels is said to have been seized and it is now been produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate after a considerable delay. If the claim of the petitioner that 33 sovereigns of gold jewels were stolen from his possession is true, the respondents ought not to have filed the final report after seizing only 5 sovereigns of gold jewels. The final report must specifically state as to why the remaining 28 sovereigns of gold jewels were not recovered. It is a different matter if the prosecution claims that only 5 sovereigns of gold jewels were stolen from the petitioner's possession. As stated earlier, the final report is not clear on all these aspects. Further, the investigating officer in this case had committed temporary misappropriation of gold jewels and therefore, the final report filed by him also cannot be relied upon. This Court is not for a moment suggesting that in all cases the stolen articles must be recovered, but, the final report must state clearly 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP CRL.(MD). No.389 of 2025 as to whether the allegation of the complainant as regards the quantum and nature of the stolen articles, is true and if so, why only a portion of the stolen articles has been seized. 8. Therefore, this Court is inclined to direct further investigation in C.C.No.98 of 2025. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Trichy shall conduct the further investigation and on conclusion of investigation shall file a final report clearly stating as to what was the quantum of jewels stolen from the petitioner and as to the quantum that was seized from the accused and also explain the reason for not seizing the remaining quantity of jewels, if any. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The Assistant Commissioner of Police shall also examine the other allegations of the petitioner that not only 5 sovereigns but more jewels were seized by the fourth respondent herein and was misappropriated by him. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP CRL.(MD). No.389 of 2025 9.With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 20.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No cp/ars TO 1.The Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, Tiruchirappalli-620 020. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, O/o.Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, Tiruchirappalli-620 020. 3.The Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station Crime, Ammamandapam Road, Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli-620 006. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP CRL.(MD). No.389 of 2025 SUNDER MOHAN,J cp/ars ORDER IN WP CRL.(MD) No.389 of 2025 Date : 20/11/2025 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis