Agila vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By In
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL RC(MD) No. 1621 of 2026
+BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 05-10-2026
DELIVERED ON : 16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MURUGESAN
CRL RC(MD) No. 1621 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011369552026}
Agila
..Petitioner
Vs
1. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police,
Mandaiyur
Police Station,
Pudukottai District,
Crime No.37/2026.
2. Raja @ Sahaya Arockiyaraj
..Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Section to call for the records
and set aside the order passed in Cr.MP.No.262 of 2026 dated 28.07.2026
by learned Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur, Pudukottai District by allowing
this Criminal Revision Petition.
For Petitioner: Mr.T. Senthil Kumar
For R1: Mr.D.Venkatesh,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
__________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
CRL RC(MD) No. 1621 of 2026
Heard and admitted.
02. With the consent of both parties, this criminal revision was
taken up for final hearing on 05.10.2026.
03. Challenging the order dated 28.07.2026 of the Judicial
Magistrate, Keeranur (FAC), Pudukkottai District, hereinafter referred
to as ‘the trial court’ for the sake of brevity, passed in Crl MP
No.262/2026, granting the interim custody of a document, a sale deed,
to the revision petitioner/petitioner/ de facto complainant with illogical
conditions, the revision petitioner/petitioner/ de facto complainant has
filed this Criminal Revision Petition under S.438 BNSS.
04. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking in this
criminal revision, 'the revision petitioner' and 'the revision respondent',
unless the context otherwise requires.
05. Prefatory facts are that the revision petitioner, a widow, is the
owner of a property under a registered sale deed dated 15.09.2005, that
__________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
CRL RC(MD) No. 1621 of 2026
the revision petitioner intended to sell the property in order to meet her
nd
medical expenses, that the 2 revision respondent, claiming himself to
be an Intelligence Officer, approached the revision petitioner and
promised her that he would bring a genuine buyer, that on such
promise, the revision petitioner entrusted the original sale deed with
nd nd
the 2 revision respondent, that the 2 revision respondent introduced
one Dr.Vasanthakumar as the intending purchaser of the property, that
the revision petitioner received some amounts from Dr.Vasanthakumar
through bank transfers, that thereafter, the revision petitioner came to
nd
know the 2 revision respondent, with the aid of Rangaram and
Subramanian, was planning to sell the property for a substantially
lower price, that consequently, the revision petitioner, through bank
transfer, returned the entire amount received from Dr.Vasanthakumar,
nd
that the revision petitioner requested the 2 revision respondent to
nd
return to her the original sale deed of the property, that the 2 revision
respondent, instead of returning the sale deed, started threatening the
revision petitioner to sell the property for a very lower price he quoted,
nd
that 2 revision respondent and others caused damage to the property
and thereby committed some other offences, that the revision
petitioner, with no other option, lodged a police complaint with
Mandayur Police Station in Cr No.37/2026 under S.316(2), S.126(2),
__________
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
CRL RC(MD) No. 1621 of 2026
nd
S.324(4), S.351(2) and S.308(2) BNS against the 2 revision
respondent/A1, Rangaram/A2 and Subramanian/A3, that during
investigation, the sale deed was recovered from Rangaram/A2 and
produced before the trial court in RP No.49/2026, that the revision
petitioner filed an application under S.497 BNSS before the trial court
in Crl MP No.262/2026 seeking the interim custody of the sale deed
and that the trial court has allowed the application in Crl MP
No.262/2026 with some conditions.
06. Challenging such conditions as onerous and illogical, the
revision petitioner has filed this criminal revision.
07. Heard both sides, and perused all the materials available.
08. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that
the impugned conditions, on its face, are onerous, illogical and
perverse and that therefore, this criminal revision deserves to be
allowed.
09. Learned counsel for the State (Crl Side) appearing for the
revision respondent would fairly concede that imposing such
__________
Page 4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
CRL RC(MD) No. 1621 of 2026
conditions on the revision petitioner being a victim is not warranted
under law.
10. Point for determination is whether the revision petitioner is
entitled to get order allowing this criminal revision?
11. While allowing the application filed by the revision
petitioner in Crl MP No.262/2026 granting the interim custody of the
sale deed, the trial court has imposed the conditions,
(a) directing the revision petitioner to execute a personal bond
for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-,
(b) directing the revision petitioner to bring two sureties for a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each,
(c) directing the revision petitioner to produce a registration copy
of the sale deed to the trial court,
(d) directing the chief ministerial officer of the trial court to
prepare a panchnama,
(e) restraining the revision petitioner from alienating the
property covered under the sale deed till the disposal of the case,
and
(f) directing the revision petitioner to produce the property as
and when required by the trial court.
nd
12. Offences alleged to have been committed by 2 revision
__________
Page 5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
CRL RC(MD) No. 1621 of 2026
respondent/ A1, Rangaram/A2 and Subramanian/A3 are criminal
breach of trust punishable under S.316(2) BNS, wrongful restraint
punishable under S.126(2) BNS, mischief punishable under S.324(4)
BNS, criminal intimidation punishable under S.351(2) BNS and
extortion punishable under S.308(2) BNS.
13. Nonetheless, the trial court, by imposing the aforesaid
conditions, appears to have erroneously treated the revision petitioner
as the accused and erroneously handled the case as if it were one
relating to the genuineness of the sale deed standing in the name of the
revision petitioner.
14. Therefore, while granting the interim custody of the sale
deed to the revision petitioner who is not only the owner of the sale
deed but also the victim in terms of her police complaint, directing the
revision petitioner, the de facto complainant, to execute a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, directing the revision petitioner to
bring two sureties for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each, directing the
revision petitioner to produce the property as and when required, and
restraining the revision petitioner from alienating the property covered
under the sale deed till the disposal of the case, are, with reference to
__________
Page 6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
CRL RC(MD) No. 1621 of 2026
the nature and scope of the case, not only onerous but also illogical, as
claimed by the revision petitioner.
15. It appears that the trial court has imposed such conditions on
the erroneous belief that the delivery or custody of the property must
be granted only on some conditions.
16. S.497 BNSS would read as under:
497. Order for custody and disposal of property
pending trial in certain cases.
(1) When any property is produced before any
Criminal Court or the Magistrate empowered to take
cognizance or commit the case for trial during any
investigation, inquiry or trial, the Court or the Magistrate
may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody
of such property pending the conclusion of the
investigation, inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject
to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient
so to do, the Court or the Magistrate may, after recording
such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or
otherwise disposed of.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,
"property" includes-(a) property of any kind or
document which is produced before the Court or
which is in its custody;
__________
Page 7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
CRL RC(MD) No. 1621 of 2026
(b) any property regarding which an offense appears
to have been committed or which appears to have
been used for the commission of any offense.
(2) The Court or the Magistrate shall, within a period
of fourteen days from the production of the property referred
to in sub-section (1) before it, prepare a statement of such
property containing its description in such form and manner
as the State Government may, by rules, provide.
(3) The Court or the Magistrate shall cause to be taken the
photograph and if necessary, videograph on mobile phone or any
electronic media, of the property referred to in sub-section (1).
(4)The statement prepared under sub-section (2) and the
photograph or the videography taken under sub-section (3) shall
be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding
under the Sanhita.
(5) The Court or the Magistrate shall, within a
period of thirty days after the statement has been prepared
under sub-section (2) and the photograph or the
videography has been taken under sub-section (3), order
the disposal, destruction, confiscation or delivery of the
property in the manner specified hereinafter . (italics
supplied by this court)
S.498 BNSS (relevant provisions thereof) would read as under:
498. Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial.
(1)When an investigation, inquiry or trial in any
criminal case is concluded, the Court or the Magistrate may
make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by
__________
Page 8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
CRL RC(MD) No. 1621 of 2026
destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming
to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any
property or document produced before it or in its custody,
or regarding which any offence appears to have been
committed, or which has been used for the commission of
any offence.
(2)An order may be made under sub-section (1) for the
delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to
the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition
that he executes a bond, with or without securities, to the
satisfaction of the Court or the Magistrate, engaging to restore
such property to the Court if the order made under sub-section
(1) is modified or set aside on appeal or revision.
…………..
………….. (italics supplied by this court)
17. In the light of the foregoing discussions and reasons, this
court holds that the conditions directing the revision petitioner, the de
facto complainant, to execute a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/-, directing the revision petitioner to bring two sureties for
a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each, directing the revision petitioner to
produce the property as and when required, and restraining the revision
petitioner from alienating the property covered under the sale deed till
the disposal of the case being onerous and illogical are liable to be set
aside.
__________
Page 9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
CRL RC(MD) No. 1621 of 2026
18. Resultantly, this court holds that the revision petitioner is
entitled to get order allowing this criminal revision in such terms as
detailed hereunder.
19. In the result,
(1) that this criminal revision petition filed by the revision
petitioner is hereby partly allowed, and
(2) that the order dated 28.07.2016 of the Judicial Magistrate,
Keeranur (FAC), Pudukkottai District, in Crl MP No.262/2026 is
hereby modified, setting aside the conditions, directing the revision
petitioner to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-,
directing the revision petitioner to bring two sureties for a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- each, directing the revision petitioner to produce the
property as and when required, and restraining the revision petitioner
from alienating the property covered under the sale deed till the
disposal of the case, and maintaining the other two conditions.
16-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
GNS
__________
Page 10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
CRL RC(MD) No. 1621 of 2026
To
1. Inspector Of Police, Mandaiyur
Police Station,
Pudukottai District,
Crime No.37/2026.
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur, Pudukottai District
__________
Page 11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )
CRL RC(MD) No. 1621 of 2026
B.MURUGESAN, J.
GNS
CRL RC(MD) No. 1621 of 2026
16-10-2026
__________
Page 12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )