Prasanth v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioner's application seeking return of his Apple Iphone and Samsung mobile phones, which were seized during the course of investigation in Crime No.214 of 2024 registered for the offences under Sections 406, 426, 120B, 294(b) and 506(2) r/w.Section 4(1) and 76(1) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982. Page2 of 4

¶2It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had cheated the de facto complainant by way of running a chit fund and hence, a case in Cr.No.214 of 2024 has been registered against the petitioner and his Apple I Phone and Samsung mobile were seized from the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed an application Section 497 and 503 of BNSS, 2023 seeking to return his properties. However, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the said petition on the ground that the petitioner may alienate / dispose the same and may involve in any other similar acts in future. Aggrieved the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid properties and that the petitioner and the de facto complainant have settled the issue and based on the said compromise this Court vide order dated 30.01.2026 in Crl.O.P.No.2014 of 2026 has quashed the case in Crime No.214 of 2024 pending against the petitioner.

¶4Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶5In view of the subsequent developments that the petitioner had compromised the issue with the de facto complainant and the fact that the First Information Report has already been quashed by this Court, this Court is Page3 of 4 inclined to order return of the mobile phones to the petitioner. Accordingly, the order dated 08.10.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 2615 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu, is hereby set aside. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu, is directed to return the petitioner's mobile phone, viz., Apple I Mobile Phone-2 and Samsung Mobile Phone-1, forthwith subject to the following condition:-

(i) the petitioner is directed to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate.

6.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands allowed. 12-03-2026 rap To

¶1The Inspector of Police, Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station Chengalpattu District.

¶2The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶3The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu. CRLoRCoNo.o568oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. rap CRLoRCoNo.o568oofo2026 12-03-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Prasanth ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station Chengalpattu District. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 and 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to Crl.M.P.No. 2615 of 2025 in Cr.No. 214 of 2024 dated 08.10.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu and set aside the same and allow the revision petition. For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Prem Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Kishore Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)