Crl.R.C.No.1145 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.03.2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Criminal Revision Case No.1145 of 2023 V.Samya ... Petitioner ..vs.. 1. The Inspector of Police (Crime) E2 Royapettah Police Station, Chennai – 600 014. 2. V.Karthick 3. Vaanathi ... Respondents Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No. 3749 of 2023 dated 01.03.2023 passed by XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. For Petitioner : Ms.D.Bharathy For Respondents : Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 Mr.S.Umapathy for R2 and R3 Page No.1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1145 of 2023 O R D E R The petitioner has filed the present revision petition challenging the order dated 01.03.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3749 of 2023 by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 2. According to the petitioner-de facto complainant, she was deserted by her husband and that she returned back to her parental home, where the petitioner, her brother and his wife and their father were residing. While that being so, their father Visvanathan was missing and that an F.I.R. was registered on 30.10.2020 by the first respondent- Police. It is further stated that after returning from the matrimonial home, the petitioner kept her jewels weighing about 16 sovereigns in the almirah of the petitioner’s father, where the petitioner’s father also kept his 30 sovereigns of gold jewels and cash of Rs.15,000/-. After missing of the petitioner’s father, it came to knowledge of the petitioner that the jewels which were kept in the said almirah were found missing. Hence, the petitioner filed a complaint before the first respondent-Police and on enquiry, respondents 2 and 3/proposed accused disclosed that they have Page No.2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1145 of 2023 taken the jewels and pledged the same in a Chit Fund Company. However, the first respondent-Police did not take any action or conduct any further investigation on the said complaint and she made a representation to the higher officials, but no steps have been taken by the Police to conduct investigation on the petitioner’s complaint. Hence, the petitioner filed a private complaint invoking Section 200 Cr.P.C., read with 156(3) Cr.P.C., for the offence under Section 380 IPC in Crl.M.P.No.3749 of 2023 before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, against respondents 2 and 3 herein. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 01.03.2023, dismissed the petition by holding that since the whereabouts of the petitioner’s father is not known till date, whether the property was missing without the knowledge of their father or it was stolen by the accused has to be decided only after securing their father and without any prima facie case, the Court has not directed the respondent-Police to register the complaint. 3. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. Page No.3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1145 of 2023 4. It is seen from the records that during the enquiry, the second respondent admitted that he pledged the jewels, which were kept in their father’s almirah, but there was no material to show that the second respondent broke open the almirah and stolen the jewels. However, the petitioner alleges that the second respondent stolen the jewels. The petitioner and the second respondent herein are sister and brother and their father only maintained the said almirah and the petitioner’s jewels and her father's jewels along with cash kept in the said almirah were found missing. Further, the whereabouts of the father of the petitioner and second respondent is not known. Hence, the learned Magistrate found that unless their father is traced out, it cannot be decided whether the jewels were stolen by the second respondent or not and dismissed the petition. 5. Admittedly, even according to the petitioner, her jewels were kept in the almirah, which was maintained by her father, now the petitioner alleges that her brother/second respondent stolen her jewels and pledged the same. However, on a perusal of entire materials, prima Page No.4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1145 of 2023 facie no criminal offence is made out against the respondents 2 and 3/ accused and also in the absence of whereabouts of their father, this Court cannot come to the conclusion as to how the jewels went to the hands of the second respondent. Though the second respondent admitted the custody of the jewels, there are no materials to show that the jewels were stolen by the second respondent. Further, the second respondent also admitted that petitioner’s jewels also kept in the same almirah. If at all, the petitioner has any grievance, she can file a suit for recovery of jewels. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Court below and hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out her remedy in the manner known to law to recover her jewels. 19.03.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No ms Page No.5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1145 of 2023 To 1. The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 2. The The Inspector of Police (Crime) E2 Royapettah Police Station, Chennai – 600 014. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Page No.6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1145 of 2023 P.VELMURUGAN, J. ms Crl.R.C.No.1145 of 2023 19.03.2025 Page No.7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis