VIGNESHKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner/Defacto Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition before this court seeking to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.11359 of 2015 (filed by the petitioner under section 451 of Cr.P.C) dated 17.12.2015 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur and to set aside the same.

(2.) The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, while passing the impugned order in Cr.M.P.No.11359 of 2015 in Cr.No.426 of 2015, on 17.12.2015, had observed the following:

(3.) Challenging the dismissal order dated 17.12.2015 in Cr.M.P.No.11359 of 2015, passed by the trial court, the Revision Petitioner/Petitioner (defacto complainant) has projected the instant Criminal Revision Petition mainly contending that the impugned order is not tenable in the eye of Law because of the reason that in Law, the trial court is empowered under Section 451 of Cr.P.C to order interim custody of the vehicle and the only rider is that the trial court, while ordering to hand over the custody of vehicle as an interim measure can impose conditions/restrictions, as it deems it fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the given case.