Madras High Court
CRL RC/1827/2026 of Irudhayamary Vs Dhanaprakash on 23 September 2026
CRL RC No. 1827 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL RC No. 1827 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011869322026}
Irudhayamary
W/o. Late Nagaraj,
364, Lourthupuram,
Thandukarampalayam,
Avinashi Taluk,
Tiruppur District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Nagaraj (Died)
1.Dhanaprakash
S/o. Palanisamy,
63, Marappampalayam,
K.N.K.Pudhur (P.O),
Avinashi,
Tiruppur District.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police
Cheyur Police Station,
Tiruppur District.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w.442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking to call for the records relating to the order passed in E.C.M.P.No.959 of 2025 dated18.05.2026 in CC.No.296 of 2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Avinashi which has been filed to return of property and set aside the same by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.
( Uploaded on: 25/09/2026 06:16:15 pm )
CRL RC No. 1827 of 2026
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.B.Tamilnidhi
For Respondent(s):
Mr.K.Govi Ganesan for R1
Mr.A.Amarnath for R2
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 revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioner’s application seeking return of jewels weighing 3 sovereigns which was seized during the course of investigation in Crime No.481 of 2016 by the second respondent.
2. It is the case of the first respondent/ defacto complainant that the petitioner’s husband and another accused had committed offence under Section 381 of IPC by committing theft of 20 bundles of banyan cloth belonging to the defacto complainant. During the course of investigation, the jewel of the petitioner was seized from the house of A1 who is the petitioner’s husband. This fact is not disputed by any of the parties. During investigation the interim custody of the jewel was handed over to the defacto complainant. A1 died pending trial and A2 was acquitted since the prosecution had not established its case beyond doubt. The trial Court while rendering the finding of acquittal has also observed that there is nothing on record to show that the jewel seized from the house of A1 was purchased from the proceeds of the alleged crime of theft of 20 bundles of banyan cloth except the confession of the accused.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
( Uploaded on: 25/09/2026 06:16:15 pm )
CRL RC No. 1827 of 2026
sought for return of the jewel after the final judgment which came to be dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner had not filed any convincing material to establish the ownership of the jewel.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that admittedly the jewel was seized from the house of A1 who is the husband of the petitioner. The trial Court found that there is no material to show that the jewel was purchased from the proceeds of the crime and hence the defacto complainant must be directed to return the jewel to the Court to enable the Court to hand it over to the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant/ first respondent, however would submit that when the defacto complainant sought for interim custody of the jewel, the petitioner’s husband had not raised any objection and therefore, the petitioner cannot now claim ownership of the jewel. He would further submit that the charge against A1 abated and could not be proved, that does not mean that A1 is innocent and therefore submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is justified.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit on instructions, that the jewel was seized from the house of A1 and there is no acceptable evidence to show that he had purchased it from the proceeds of the crime.
( Uploaded on: 25/09/2026 06:16:15 pm )
CRL RC No. 1827 of 2026
7. The admitted facts are that on the complaint given by the first respondent, a case was registered in Crime No.481 of 2016 for the offence under Section 381 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the jewel “Aaram” weighing three sovereigns was seized from the house of A1. Pending investigation, the first respondent had sought for interim custody of the jewel on the condition that he would not alienate the jewel pending disposal of the trial. A1 died pending trial. A2 has been acquitted. The fact that the charge against A1 has abated would make no difference and it cannot be presumed that A1 is guilty of the offence. Infact, the presumption is otherwise.
8. Considering the fact that the jewel was seized from the house of A1 and the petitioner is the wife of A1, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to return of the jewel seized during the course of investigation. The first respondent is therefore directed to hand over the jewel to the learned Magistrate, within a period of two weeks from today (23.09.2026) and the learned Magistrate shall hand over the jewel to the petitioner.
9. With the above observation, this revision is allowed. 23-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No pri
( Uploaded on: 25/09/2026 06:16:15 pm )
CRL RC No. 1827 of 2026
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Avinashi.
2. The Sub Inspector of Police Cheyur Police Station, Tiruppur District.
( Uploaded on: 25/09/2026 06:16:15 pm )
CRL RC No. 1827 of 2026
SUNDER MOHAN, J. pri CRL RC No. 1827 of 2026 23-09-2026
( Uploaded on: 25/09/2026 06:16:15 pm )