LALITHAKUMAR AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners have focused the present Criminal Revision Petition before this Court as against the order dated 16.03.2016, made in Crl.M.P. No. 992 of 2015, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate XIV, Egmore (Allikulam), Chennai -600 003.

(2.) Mr.R.Sreerangan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, while passing the impugned order in Crl.M.P. No.992 of 2015 in Crime No. 1473 of 2015 [filed by the first Revision petitioner], on 16.03.2016 in paragraph -4 had inter alia observed that in the documents submitted by the Government side, the owner of the jewels was shown as 'Sripal Chopda'. Further, the said person in his 'sworn affidavit' had stated that he and the Petitioners had compromised themselves, yet in what manner the compromise was arrived at was not mentioned in the 'sworn affidavit'. No recitals were shown to the effect that the First Petitioner/Accused was the owner of the seized property. Hence, in the present circumstances, the Court was not in a position to find out whether the Petitioner/Accused [1st Revision Petitioner] was the full owner of the property. Therefore, the issue as to whether the 1st Revision Petitioner/Accused is the owner of the property or not can be find out only at the time of trial of the main case and resultantly dismissed the petition without costs.

(3.) Assailing the correctness of the dismissal of the petition in Crl.M.P. No.992 of 2016, dated 09.03.2016, passed by the trial Court, the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submits that the First Petitioner/Accused was working in the Second Respondent's shop from the year 1994 without any blemish and drew a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/ -. Also that, the First Petitioner was taken into custody by the First Respondent Police and he was harassed to admit stealing jewels from the Second Respondent shop, which he refused.