Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2909 (MAD)

Sakthi Kambarajan v. Inspector of Police W-26

2008-08-11

K.MOHAN RAM

body2008
Judgment :- Admit. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) takes notice for the first respondent. By consent on either, the revision itself is taken for final disposal. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the revision petition, are set out as under:- a. On a complaint given by the wife of the petitioner, a case in Cr.No.21 of 2005 was registered against the petitioner and his mother for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 506(ii) I.P.C. and the petitioner and his mother were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12. 2005. The petitioner moved a bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.10578 of 2005 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, who granted bail on condition that the petitioner shall make cash deposit of Rs.60,000/- before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and accordingly, the conditional order has been complied with. Thereafter, as the dispute between the petitioner and his mother and the defacto complainant was settled amicably, the defacto complainant filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.6339 of 2006 before this Court to quash the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner and his mother. The said Crl.O.P. was allowed, by order dated 24. 2006. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, in Crl.M.P.No.415 of 2006, seeking return of the said amount of Rs.60,000/- deposited by him, which has been dismissed, by order, dated 28. 2006 on the ground that while quashing the F.I.R., this Court has not given any direction regarding the refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioner has come forward with this revision. 5. Heard both. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions putforth in the above revision petition and submitted that since the F.I.R. has been quashed, the amount of Rs.60,000/- deposited by the petitioner in compliance of the conditional order, has to be refunded to the petitioner as there is no legal bar for ordering refund of the same to the petitioner. 7. On the aforesaid submission, the learned Govt. Advocate(Crl.Side) was heard. He fairly submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the amount deposited by him, when the very F.I.R. is quashed. 8. 7. On the aforesaid submission, the learned Govt. Advocate(Crl.Side) was heard. He fairly submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the amount deposited by him, when the very F.I.R. is quashed. 8. Admittedly, on the basis of the complaint given by the wife of the petitioner, a case was registered against the petitioner under Sections 498-A and 506(ii) I.P.C., and the petitioner was arrested and while granting bail, a conditional order was passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.No.10578 of 2005, dated 112. 2005, and the petitioner deposited Rs.60,000/-before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. It is also not in dispute that the very F.I.R. has been quashed, which was registered on the complaint given by the wife of the petitioner, by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.6339 of 2006, by order, dated 24. 2006 in the wake of amicable settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. In the above circumstances, when the very F.I.R. has been quashed, there is no legal bar for ordering refund of the said amount to the petitioner. This aspect has not been properly considered by the Court below and therefore, the order of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, is liable to be set aside. In fine, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the order of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate. Further, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to refund the amount of Rs.60,000/- to the petitioner.