ESHWARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is preferred against the order 27.08.2019, made in Crl. M.P. No.7381 of 2019, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner u/s 457 and 451 Cr.P.C. for return of the vehicle.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner as put forth not only in the petition, but also through the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, bearing Registration No.TN-55-AU-6656 and that she has not committed any offence as alleged by the respondent/police, though the vehicle has been seized from the accused and kept in the custody of the respondent/police, for which a case has been registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. However, it is submitted that the name of the petitioner is not shown as an accused in the FIR. It is submitted that the vehicle is kept in open places, which erodes the value of the vehicle and over a period of time, if it is not maintained, the vehicle would become valueless. Therefore, the petitioner filed Cr.M.P. No.7381 of 2019 before the Judicial Magistrate for release of vehicle. However, the said petition was dismissed and, therefore, the present revision has been preferred before this Court.

(3.) Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) vehemently opposed the petition submitting that pending trial, if the vehicle is directed to be released to the petitioner, the petitioner may alienate the vehicle and, thereby, the said act would be very detrimental to the prosecution case, which fact has been considered by the court below and, therefore, no interference is called for with the said order. It is further contended by the learned Government Advocate that the vehicle is involved in kidnapping and demanding ransom, which fact has been considered by the court below while dismissing the petition. However, it is fairly conceded by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused in the FIR. However, it is contended that the order, passed u/s 451 Cr.P.C. Is an interlocutory order and in view of the bar u/s 397 (2) Cr.P.C., the revision is not maintainable.