G.Arul Manikandan v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Eow, Trichy,

ORDER The Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.117 of 2026 in C.C.No.31 of 2013 dated 20.04.2026 on the file of the Special Court under TNPID Act cases, Madurai, wherein, the investigation agency was directed to inspect and measure the property available at Thiru.V.Ka Street, Jinnash Street, Sangiliyandapuram, Trichy in TSR.No.102, TSR.No.103 Old Survey No.23-24, 23-25, 23-27.

¶2It is evident from the records that the first respondent police have laid a Final report against the present revision petitioners / accused 3 and 4 and two other accused for the offences punishable under Section 5 of TNPID Act and Sections 406, 420 r/w 120(B) IPC before the TNPID Court, Madurai and that the case is presently pending at the stage of defence evidence.

¶3The first respondent police, on coming to know about the existence of an ancestral property in which the fourth revision petitioner/fourth accused is stated to have a share, filed a petition seeking permission of the Court to inspect and measure the said property. The revision petitioners resisted the said petition contending that the property is a joint family property, that the other co-owners have also raised objections and that a partition suit in respect of the property is pending.

¶4The revision petitioners, being accused in a case involving allegations of default under the TNPID Act, were expected to disclose the existence of the aforesaid ancestral property at the earliest point of time. However, they admittedly did not disclose the said fact and contested the proceedings for nearly thirteen years. It was only subsequently, upon independently coming to know of the existence of the property, that the first respondent police filed the petition seeking permission to inspect and measure the same. In such circumstances, the objections raised by the revision petitioners on the grounds that the property is a joint family property, that a partition suit is pending, and that the co-owners have objected to the proposed measurement, cannot by themselves constitute valid grounds to reject the request made by the first respondent police.

¶5The learned trial Judge, on a proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly permitted the first respondent police to inspect and measure the said property for the purpose of initiating appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the TNPID Act. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Judge warranting interference in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

¶6In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

29.05.2026 TTA To

1.The Special Court under the Tamilnadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1997 at Madurai

¶2The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Eow, Trichy, Trichy. Crime No.4 of 2011.

¶3Net Com Information and Technology, No. A-10, Lakshmi Arcade, Trichy - 620018..

¶4Ding Dong Trading Net Com Information and Technology, No.A-10, Lakshmi Arcade, Trichy – 620018.. K.MURALI SHANKAR,J TTA ORDER IN CRL RC(MD) No.848 of 2026 Date : 29/05/2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 29/05/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR CRL RC(MD). No.848 of 2026 and Crl.M.P(MD).No.9909 of 2026 1. G.Arul Manikandan, 2. T.S. Govindaraj,, ... Petitioners Vs 1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Eow, Trichy, Trichy. Crime No.4 of 2011. 2. Net Com Information and Technology, No. A-10, Lakshmi Arcade, Trichy - 620018.. 3. Ding Dong Trading Net Com Information and Technology, No.A-10, Lakshmi Arcade, Trichy – 620018. ... Respondents PRAYER :- This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 of the BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 20.04.2026 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 117 of 2026 in C.C. No. 31 of 2013 on the file of the Special Court under the Tamilnadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1997 at Madurai and set aside the same. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Venkatesan, For Respondent : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)