(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS to set aside the impugned order dated 23.06.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 632 of 2025 in CNR. No. TNCH)F-001503-2025 in C.C.B. Cr. No. 232/2023 C.C. No. 996/2025 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (Relating to Cheating cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai – 08 and direct the Trial Court to return the articles of the petitioner.)

1. The revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioner’s application seeking return of 195 documents, which were seized during the course of investigation in Crime No. 232 of 2023.

2. The 2nd respondent herein had filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging misuse of the power of attorney executed in his favour and gaining wrongfully. During the course of investigation, 292 documents were seized and the petitioner sought return of 195 documents.

3. The learned Magistrate dismissed the same on the ground that those documents are required for the purpose of trial.

4. (a). Mr.V. Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent Police have no jurisdiction to seize those documents in exercise of their power under Section 102 Cr.P.C./106 BNSS as the documents cannot be said to be stolen properties or said to create a suspicion of commission of any offence; that even assuming that the proceeds of the crime have to be protected in the interest of the de facto complainant, only Section 107 of BNSS ought to have been invoked.

    (b) Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out the nature of the documents seized and would submit that some of the documents pertain to the period prior to the registration of the power of attorney in favour of the petitioner by the 2nd respondent. He would also submit that there is a suit filed by the 2nd respondent pending against the petitioner’s wife as they had jointly purchased certain properties challenging the partition deed entered into between her and the petitioner’s wife in respect of properties purchased jointly by them.

5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the petitioner’s wife had filed an affidavit before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, undertaking to (i) release the frozen amount of Rs.49,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the 2nd respondent; (ii) to execute a settlement deed to and in favour of the 2nd respondent of all the piece and parcel of vacant land to an extent of 9094 sq.ft (which includes 50% of 10 feet x 400 feet and 50% of 14.6 x 74) pathway obtained through Partition Deed dated 05.05.2023 registered as Document No. 5864 of 2023 by a Sale deed dated 14.10.2020 registered as Document No. 5159 of 2020 at the Sub Registrar Office, Neelangarai and (iii) to execute a release deed to and in favour of the 2nd respondent releasing 50% of her share in agricultural land of an extent of 3 acres 99 cents along with pump set and outhouse at Iygunam Village, Keelpenatur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District purchased through Document No. 403 of 2019 dated 08.03.2019 at the Mangalam Sub Registrar Office.

6. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), on instructions, would submit that investigation has been completed and final report has also been filed.

7. Admittedly, the documents are not stolen properties and they are not properties which create a suspicion of commission of any offence. Therefore, the respondent Police ought not to have seized all those documents in exercise of the power under Section 102 Cr.P.C./106 BNSS. If the respondent Police were of the view that the proceeds of the crime have to be protected, then they ought to have resorted to Section 107 BNSS. Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to return of the documents. However, considering the fact that the petitioner’s wife herself had filed an affidavit before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai undertaking to execute certain documents, this Court is of the view that the documents relating to the property mentioned in the undertaking given by the petitioner’s wife shall be retained in the custody of the Court.

8. Both the counsels identified those documents which are listed as item Nos.1 to 17, in the affidavit filed by the petitioner on September 2025. The said documents which are listed below shall be retained in the custody of the Court until further orders:



   

9. Today, when the case was posted for clarification, the learned senior counsel for the second respondent submitted that the documents listed as Item Nos.70 to 81 in the affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 04.09.2025 [which is scanned and attached to this order for easy reference] are blank papers and that could contain the signature of the second respondent. This Court is of the view that those documents can be returned to the petitioner. However, if the blank papers contain the signature of the second respondent, it shall be retained by the Court. The documents listed in Item Nos.65 and 97 in the same list shall be returned to the second respondent. In addition, the passport of the petitioner’s wife seized along with the other documents bearing No.L7371448 shall be returned to the petitioner.

10. The other apprehension expressed by the learned senior counsel for the second respondent is that the document listed in S.No.21 is an unfilled life certificate and could be misused. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said certificate cannot be used in any manner.

11. In view of the above, it is ordered as follows:

               (i) The petitioner shall comply with the undertaking given in the above referred affidavit dated 04.09.2025 (the scanned copy of which as stated above is attached to this order).

               (ii) The remaining property documents listed in the affidavit attached apart from what is mentioned in the above order shall be returned to the petitioner on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

               (iii) The petitioner shall replace the documents returned to him with a photo copy. The said copy shall be retained in Court. The petitioner shall not deal with any of the properties pertaining to which the title deeds which are now been directed to be returned to the petitioner until further orders.

12. With the above observation, the criminal revision petition is disposed of.