Madras High Court
CRL RC/268/2025 of M/S.HDFC BANK LTD. 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. 268 of 2025
CNR: {HCMA010239172025}
M/s.HDFC Bank Ltd.,
Represented By Its Senior Manager Mr.Mohan Raj, Retail Portfolio Management - Legal, 2nd Floor, Itc Centre, 760, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police, The Inspector Of Police, Central Crime Cid, Metro Wing-1, Egmore, Chennai-600 006.
2. Vipul Metha
3. Landmar Housing Project Chennai Pvt Ltd, Rep by Managing Director Mr.Udhayakumar, 27, Saravana Street, T.Nagar Chennai - 600 017
4. Udhayakumar
5. Bhuvaneswari
6. N.Srinivasan
(R2 to R6 impleaded as per common order
dated 03.09.2026 in Crl.M.P.Nos.16733 and 16764 of 2026 in Crl.R.C.No.268 of 2025)
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Revision filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, 2023, to call for the records of the order dated 21.12.2024 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB cases and CBCID Metro cases at Egmore in Crl.M.P.No.22603/2024 in C.C.No.6818/2023 and set aside the same.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.K.Krishnan
for M/S.Nathan and Associates
For Respondent(s):
Mr.A.Amarnath
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R1
Mr.J.Saravana Vel
for R6
No Appearance for R3 to R5
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 order passed by the learned Magistrate, dismissing the petitioner's application seeking return of documents, which were obtained during the course of investigation for the purpose of comparison of signature of the accused in Crime No.1 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused in Crime No.1 of 2023 had committed offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and upon investigation, final report was filed in C.C.No.6818 of 2023 on the file of CCB and CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. During the course of investigation, the respondent police had directed the petitioner to handover certain documents, which were deposited by the sixth respondent for obtaining loan. The documents are as follows:
i) Builders Agreement entered between Mr.Srinivasan with M/s. Landmark Housing Project Chennai Private Limited dated 24.07.2017, registered as Doc.No.874/2017 on the file of SRO, Tiruvallikeni.
ii) Sale Deed executed by M/s.Landmark Housing Project Chennai Private Limited and Mr.Srinivasan dated 28.06.2017, registered as Doc.No.875/2017 on the file of SRO, Tiruvallikeni.
iii) Letter issued by M/s.Landmark Housing Project Chennai Private Limited dated 30.03.2017.
iv) Deed of Guarantee dated 30.03.2017 between Mr.Srinivasan with M/s.Landmark Housing Project Chennai Private Limited and HDFC.
v) Agreement of Sale dated 30.03.2017.
vi) Agreement of Sale dated 24.06.2017 and
vii) Housing loan acceptance letter.
3. It appears that after collecting the documents, the respondent Police had filed the documents along with the final report to establish their case against the accused. The petitioner sought for return of documents, as he was bound to return the documents to the sixth respondent, who had deposited the title deeds while obtaining the loan. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the documents that were collected from the petitioner have nothing to do with the alleged offence said to have been committed by the accused in C.C.No.6818 of 2023 and that the documents were obtained only for comparison of signature of the accused in the documents, which were admitted by him, with the disputed signature and since the purpose is served, the petitioner is entitled to return of documents.
5. The sixth respondent, who had deposited the title deed, has filed an implead petition in support of this petition, which was ordered by this Court by the order dated 03.09.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.16733 and 16764 of 2026 in Crl.R.c.No.268 of 2026.
6. The learned counsel for the sixth respondent would submit that neither he nor the Bank have anything to do with the alleged offence committed by the accused in C.C.No.6818 of 2023 and the learned Magistrate ought to have returned the documents to the Bank to enable the sixth respondent to retrieve the documents on repayment of loan.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would fairly concede that these documents were obtained only for comparison of the signature and since that has now been done, the documents may be returned.
8. In light of the above submissions, this Court is of the view that the order impugned is liable to be set aside and the documents that were collected from the petitioner through the request letters dated 17.07.2023 and 21.07.2023 by the first respondent shall be returned to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If for any reason the first respondent requires the signature in the documents for the purpose of proving their case against the accused in C.C.Nio.6818 of 2023, The Trial Court shall retain certified copies of these documents for that purpose and return the originals as abovestated.
9. With the above observation, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. 23-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No (drm) To:
1. The Inspector Of Police, Central Crime Cid, Metro Wing-1, Egmore, Chennai-600 006.
2. The Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore.
SUNDER MOHAN, J. (drm) CRL.R.C.No.268 of 2025 23-09-2026