Madras High Court
CRL RC/903/2026 of K.Sumanth Reddy Vs The State Rep By Its on 27 October 2026
CRL RC No. 903 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL RC No. 903 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA010875432026}
K.Sumanth Reddy
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Rep. by its
The Inspector of Police
CCB ACP-II Team II,
Tambaram Metropolitan Police
Sholinganallur, Chennai – 119.
(Crime No.226/2021)
2. Archana Reddy
(R2 is impleaded as per the order of this court dated 08.09.2026 in Crl.MP.No.15105 of 2026
in Crl.RC.No.903 of 2026)
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: The Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram in Crl.M.P.No.286 of 2026 by an order dated 06.04.2026.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Vickram Veerasamy
for Mr.R.Nageswara Rao
For Respondent(s):
Mr.M.Amarnath,
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R1
Mr.Rahul M.Shankhar for R2
CRL RC No. 903 of 2026
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 case is listed under the caption ‘for being mentioned’ at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the sale deed bearing no.817 of 2005 dated 08/02/2005 may not be required for further investigation and sought for return of the said document as well.
3. Considering the submissions, paragraph nos. 5 and 6 of the order dated 30.09.2026 is modified as follows;
5. This Court is of the view that in order to conduct further investigation, these documents are not necessary. So the following the documents namely (1) Original Approved Plan, (2) Original Patta in name of Sarala Reddy, (3) Original Sale Deed 2168/1982 dated 29/03/1985, (4) Original Sale Deed 907/1989 dated 03/03/1989 and (5) Original Sale Deed 817/2005 dated 08/02/2005 and (6) Original MODT in favour of TCFSL Doc No.4/1018, shall be returned forthwith to the petitioner.
6. The petitioner shall not alienate the property covered under the sale deed No.817/2005 dated 08/02/2005 or otherwise create any encumbrance until further orders. It is made clear that in the event of the Investigation Officer seeking the said document from the petitioner, for the purpose of investigation, the petitioner shall handover the same to the Investigation Officer, for the said purpose.
CRL RC No. 903 of 2026
4. It is also seen that in paragraph no.2 of the said order, in the fourth line, it has been wrongly typed as ‘document no.56 of 2025’ instead of ‘document no.56 of 2005’.
5. Registry is directed to issue order copy afresh forthwith, by making necessary corrections in the order dated 30.09.2026 made in CRL RC No.903 of 2026. 27-10-2026 TSG To
1. The Inspector of Police, CCB ACP-II Team II. Tambaram Metropolitan Police, Sholinganallur, Chennai – 119. (Crime No.226/2021)
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
CRL RC No. 903 of 2026
SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG CRL RC No. 903 of 2026 27-10-2026
CRL RC No. 903 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL RC No. 903 of 2026 CNR: {HCMA010875432026} K.Sumanth Reddy ..Petitioner(s) Vs
3. The State Rep. by its The Inspector of Police, CCB ACP-II Team II, Tambaram Metropolitan Police Sholinganallur, Chennai – 119. (Crime No.226/2021)
4. Archana Reddy (R2 is impleaded as per the order of this court dated 08.09.2026 in Crl.MP.No.15105 of 2026 in Crl.R.C.No.903 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) Prayer: The Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram in Crl.M.P.No.286 of 2026 by an order dated 06.04.2026. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Vickram Veerasamy for Mr.R.Nageswara Rao For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Amarnath, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 Mr.Rahul M.Shankhar for R2
CRL RC No. 903 of 2026
ORDER
The Revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioner's prayer seeking return of the documents, which was seized during the course of investigation, in Crime No.226 of 2021.
2. It is the case of the second respondent that the petitioner, along with his mother, had forged the signature of her father late K.N.Reddy in the sale deed bearing No.817 of 2005 and in the Will, which was registered in document no.56 of 2025. On the complaint given by the second respondent, a case in Crime No.226 of 2021 was registered for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. The first respondent police had filed the final report stating that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and had relied upon certain observations made by this Court in WP.No.19204 of 2021, W.A.No.191 of 2021 and W.A.No.619 of 2022. The petitioner thereafter, filed a petition seeking return of the following documents, seized during the course of investigation. S.No. List of Documents
Original Approved Plan
Original Patta in name of Sarala Reddy
Original Sale Deed 2168/1982 dated 29/03/1985
Original Sale Deed 907/1989 dated 03/03/1989
Original Sale Deed 817/2005 dated 08/02/2005
CRL RC No. 903 of 2026
Original MODT in favour of TCFSL Doc.No.4/1018
3. The learned Magistrate has dismissed the said petition on the ground that the second respondent had filed a protest petition against the negative report filed by the first respondent and pending the same, the documents cannot be returned.
4. Admittedly, the document were in possession of the petitioner and were deposited with the Tata Capital Financial Services, which had extended a credit facility to the petitioner. The documents were seized from the said company. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has repaid the entire loan and is due to receive the documents from the said finance company.
5. This Court is of the view that in order to conduct further investigation, these documents are not necessary, except for the sale deed dated 08.02.2005 said to have been executed by the father of the second respondent in favour of the petitioner's mother. So the following the documents namely (1) Original Approved Plan, (2) Original Patta in name of Sarala Reddy, (3) Original Sale Deed 2168/1982 dated 29/03/1985, (4) Original Sale Deed 907/1989 dated 03/03/1989 and (5) Original MODT in favour of TCFSL Doc No.4/1018, shall be returned forthwith to the petitioner.
CRL RC No. 903 of 2026
6. The sale deed dated 08.02.2005, shall be retained in the custody of the Court, till the conclusion of the further investigation. On conclusion, the learned Magistrate shall hand over the said document to the petitioner. The petitioner shall not alienate the property covered under the sale deed or otherwise create any encumbrance until further orders.
7. With the above observations, the Revision is allowed. 30-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG To
1. The Inspector of Police, CCB ACP-II Team II, Tambaram Metropolitan Police Sholinganallur, Chennai – 119. (Crime No.226/2021).
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
CRL RC No. 903 of 2026
SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG CRL RC No. 903 of 2026 30-09-2026