Syed Mariyam vs State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, & Anr.

This Criminal Revision Case is filed praying to set aside the order made in Cr.M.P.No.1027 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District, dated 13.06.2016 and hand over the custody of the properties remanded in P.R.Nos.29, 30 & 31 of 2016, which have been seized by the 1st Respondent in Crime No.34 of 2015.

Brief facts, in nutshell, are as under :- The petitioner herein is the wife of Siraj Dowla and is the complainant in this case, in which, an FIR was registered on 17.11.2015 in Crime No.34 of 2015 by the first respondent Police against 13 accused, for the offences under Sections 120(b), 420, 416 and 506(i) of IPC. The crux of the complaint is that all the accused entered into a conspiracy and among them A1 and A2 impersonated themselves as Shenbagaraman and Marakatham and received a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-, as advance, for sale consideration of vacant site stating them as owners of Survey No.55/2A1, 0.41 cents, from Siraj Dowla, the husband of the complainant, in his house five months prior to the complaint and thereafter, on several dates A1 and A2 received Rs.1,00,00,000/- in the presence of other accused from Siraj Dowla, who obtained the said money by pledging both complainant and her sister''s jewels from Muthoot Bank and latter on received a sum of Rs.1,15,00,000/- from the said Siraj Dowla, who got it as loan from his friend and the accused persons had cheated the said Siraj Dowla by producing the forged documents for Rs.2.50 Crores. It is admitted that A1 was arrested and a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-; 15.000 grms Gobi Chain; 17.550 grams of Murukku Chain, 34.150 grams of Kasaimalai Chain were recovered from him and remanded under P.R.No.30 of 2016 on 29.01.2016; that A2 was arrested and a sum of Rs.2,60,000/-, one pair of Kasaimalai weighing 4.00 gms and 2.00 gms Tech Ring were recovered from A2 and remanded under P.R.No.29 of 2016 on 29.01.2016 and that A5 was arrested and a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- was recovered from him and remanded under P.R.No.31 of 2016, dated 29.01.2016 and the above said cash and jewels are in the custody of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli and that the remaining accused are yet to be arrested and the investigation is pending.

The Petitioner filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.1027 of 2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., for return of the above seized cash and jewels from the custody of the Court claiming that the above jewels were purchased by the amount received from her husband by cheating. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli issued Notices to A1 to A13 and A6 alone through his counsel filed objection, who added as the 2nd respondent in the above petition. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after hearing both sides, dismissed the above petition holding that the claim of ownership in the remanded cash and jewels seized from A1, A2 and A5 would be decided only during trial and no necessity arose to return the properties, at this stage.

The impugned order of dismissal dated 13.06.2016, is being questioned in this Revision by the Revision Petitioner / defacto complainant contending that there is no rival claim with regard to the cash and jewels, which have been seized from the accused and that A2 had not made any rival claim and no amount was recovered from him.

The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the 1st respondent Police would contend that claim of ownership by the petitioner upon the seized cash and jewels is to be decided only at the time of trial and the petitioner cannot have any right to claim, since the investigation is not yet completed.

Perused the materials on record and considered the rival submissions made by either counsels.

On perusal of the First Information Report would reveal the fact that A1 and A2 received totally a sum of Rs.2.5 Crores by way of cheating on impersonation as the owners of the land from one Siraj Dowla. The said Siraj Dowla has not come forward to claim for return of the seized cash and jewels, which were in the custody of the Court. The real owners of the above properties is not before the Court. The petitioner has no locus standi to file a petition for return of the seized properties from the Court. The counsel for the petitioner refers another FIR registered by Palayamkottai Police Station in Crime No.907 of 2015, dated 18.11.2015 on the complaint lodged by one Kannan @ Shenbagaraman, who is said to be A1 in this case. A bare reading of the said FIR would reveal that the said complainant received a sum of Rs.1.36 Crores from the said Siraj Dowla on 09.11.2015 and registered the power deed at Kokkirakulam. As per the FIR in this case, A1 and A2 impersonated themselves as Shenbagaraman and Marakatham, as owners of the vacant site and cheated the said Siraj Dowla by receiving totally a sum of Rs.2.5 crores. The address of the complainant found in FIR No.907 of 2015, dated 18.11.2015 differs from the address of the actual accused. The alleged date of occurrence and the cheated amount also differs in both the FIRs. The complainant in Crime No.907 of 2015 does not speak about A2 found in the FIR in this case. In the above stated circumstances, this Court does not find any irregularity in the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1027 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed.