MURUGAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/owner of the vehicle has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 30.8.2012 in Cr.M.P. No. 4753 of 2010 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Tuticorin. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Tuticorin, while passing the order dated 30.8.2012 in Cr.M.P. No. 4753 of 2010 has inter alia observed that the Petitioner/owner of the vehicle has prayed for the return of the vehicle to him with a view to receive the insurance amount and further in case, the vehicle/car is to be handed over to the Petitioner, then there is a possibility of non production of the same when the Court requires it for production of the same and further, the Petitioner has not produced the original Registration book of the vehicle etc., and resultantly, dismissed the petition.

(2.) The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/owner of the vehicle submits that the Petitioner is the registered owner of the Tata Indica car bearing Registration No. TN 57 AC 1490 and that the Petitioner filed Cr.M.P. No. 4753 of 2010 praying for issuance of an order by the trial Court to handover the car in question. However, the trial Court has dismissed the said miscellaneous petition assigning reasons which are not correct in the eye of Law. Therefore, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner/owner of the vehicle prays for allowing the Criminal Revision filed by him as against the order dated 30.8.2012 in Cr.M.P. No. 4753 of 2010 passed by the trial Court to promote substantial cause of justice.

(3.) This Court has heard the Learned Government advocate (criminal side) appearing for the Respondent/Police.