Crl.O.P.No.22829 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.08.2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Crl.O.P.No.22829 of 2025 Ramkumar ... Petitioner Versus The State rep. By The Inspector of Police, CCD-Prohibition of Counterfeit Notes Wing, Chennai ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, to call for the records and set aside the order dated 11.07.2025 in C.M.P.No.1574 of 2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu and pass appropriate orders. For Petitioner : Ms.M.Kruthika For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and set aside the order dated 11.07.2025 in C.M.P.No.1574 of 2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu. Page No.1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.22829 of 2025 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the documents placed on record. 3. The order impugned in the present Petition is that the trial court has directed the petitioner to produce the custody of the jewels. When the interim custody of the jewels were not produced as directed by the court below, the petitioner was forfeited bond amount of Rs.6 Lakhs within a period of one month, failing which, directed legal action. Further, the stolen jewels from the defacto complainant was handed over for interim custody in CMP No.3403 of 2019 in Cr.No.305 of 2019 on a specific condition to produce the property as and when required by the court. Further, with a specific condition not to alienate the property till the disposal of the case and he was directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.6 Lakhs, accordingly, the bond was executed. However, when the court has directed the property to be produced for further investigation by the CBCID since various other accused are involved in this matter, all the Page No.2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.22829 of 2025 jewels were not produced by the defacto complainant. On the other hand, he has sold the property violating the order passed by the court, therefore, the court below directed to forfeit the bond for a sum of Rs.6 Lakhs and directed further legal action. The said order sought to be challenged. 4. When a person voluntarily violates the order passed by the court and sold the jewels, cannot challenge the said order passed by the court below. Therefore, this Court is of the view that deliberately, the petitioner has done such things, which cannot be entertained by the Court of Law, specifically, when there is a condition not to alienate. The trial court is directed to proceed as per law and this Court finds no merits in the present petition. 5. Accordingly, the present Petition is dismissed. 19.08.2025 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order / Non Speaking order ssd Page No.3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.22829 of 2025 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. ssd To 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu 2. The State rep. By The Inspector of Police, CCD-Prohibition of Counterfeit Notes Wing, Chennai 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Crl.O.P.No.22829 of 2025 19.08.2025 Page No.4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis