Madras High Court
CRL RC/1545/2026 of Saminathan @ Gajendran Vs The State rep by the Inspector of Police on 23 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL RC No. 1545 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011470362026}
Saminathan @ Gajendran
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The State rep by the Inspector of Police Kangeyam Police Station, Crime No. 60 of 2025.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Revision filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of the BNSS, to set aside the order dated 12.06.2026 made E.Crl.M.P.No.169 of 2026 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Kangeygam by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.R.Prabakar
For Respondent(s):
Mr.A.Amarnath
Additional Public Prosecutor
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 12.06.2026, refusing to return the documents seized during the course of investigation in Crime No.60 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 296(b), 351(3) of the BNS, 2023, and Section 4 of the Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003, has filed the revision.
2. It is the case of the defacto complainant that the petitioner lent a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only); that though the loan was repaid, the petitioner refused to return the documents by illegally charging exorbitant interest. The respondent Police, on investigation, filed a final report, which is pending in trial in C.C.No.326 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam. During investigation, the petitioner sought return of documents, by filing a petition, which came to be dismissed by the order impugned.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as many as seventeen documents, which are totally irrelevant to the instant case, have been seized and that it is not the case of the respondent that they are stolen properties or create suspicion of any cognizable offence and therefore, those documents ought not to have been seized under Section 106 of the BNSS and prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra, submits that two of the documents mentioned in the list, namely,
4) Mtz vz;/7977/2021 C.ghz;oad; S/o rpd;df;fhis nrhypa brl;oahh; vd;gth; kDjhuh; rhkpehjd;f;F vGjp bfhLj;j fpiua Mtzk; (P.R.Serial No:7)
15) Mtz vz;/2357/2018 ghz;oad; S/o rpd;df;fhis nrhypa brl;oahh; vd;gth; kDjhuh; rhkpehjd;f;F vGjp bfhLj;j fpiua Mtzk; (P.R.Serial No:69) are documents pertaining to the father of the defacto complainant and those documents are required to establish the case of the prosecution.
5. Since admittedly, the other documents have nothing to do with the alleged offence said to have been committed by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the order impugned, insofar as it refuses to return the remaining documents, is set aside. The prosecution is entitled to retain the above mentioned two sale deeds and the remaining documents shall be returned to the petitioner.
6. The Criminal Revision Case, accordingly, stands allowed. 23-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No (drm) To:
1. The Inspector of Police Kangeyam Police Station, Crime No. 60 of 2025.
2. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Kangeyam.
SUNDER MOHAN, J. DRM CRL.R.C.No.1545 of 2026 23-09-2026