Madras High Court upholds fair‐hearing principle by remanding for fresh disposal, affirming subordinate courts’ duty to allow petitioners to explain and amend defective affidavits under criminal revision powers.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRL RC/1494/2025 of R.Ravichandran Vs State Represented by, The Sub Inspector of Police |
| CNR | HCMA011831142025 |
| Date of Registration | 18-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 19-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms obligation to grant fair opportunity |
| Type of Law | Criminal procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a magistrate can dismiss a petition for return of property due to affidavit defects without permitting the petitioner to explain or rectify the affidavit? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that before dismissing a petition for return of property on the ground of a defective affidavit, the magistrate must afford the petitioner an opportunity to file a better affidavit and to explain discrepancies. Dismissal without such an opportunity violates the fair‐hearing principle. Consequently, the remand for fresh disposal under the inherent revision jurisdiction was warranted. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | The court applied the principle of audi alteram partem and inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to ensure justice is not defeated by procedural technicalities. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, as complainant, sought return of gold jewels, cash, and silver ornaments seized from the accused. The trial court dismissed the petition for return on the ground that the affidavit lacked proper details correlating with the recovered properties. The petitioner was not given a chance to explain or amend the affidavit. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court mandates that a petition for return of property should not be dismissed on affidavit defects without giving the petitioner a chance to rectify or explain.
- Emphasises that procedural fairness cannot be sacrificed for technical compliance.
- Advocates can cite this decision to argue for remand and opportunity to correct affidavits in similar return‐of‐property applications.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner filed a petition under criminal revision seeking return of his properties seized in Crime No. 490 of 2025.
- The trial court dismissed the petition solely because the supporting affidavit lacked sufficient detail and did not correlate with the seized items.
- The petitioner was not heard or allowed to amend the affidavit before dismissal.
- Invoking inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court held that such dismissal without an opportunity to rectify violates the principle of audi alteram partem.
- The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh disposal, directing the magistrate to permit filing of a better affidavit and oral explanation of the seized properties.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The affidavit filed in support of the petition was incomplete but the petitioner was denied any opportunity to amend or explain.
- Dismissal on affidavit defects without hearing amounts to a denial of fair hearing.
Factual Background
The petitioner, who was also the complainant, reported the theft of gold jewels, cash, and silver ornaments. During investigation, these items were recovered from the accused and kept in police custody. The petitioner filed a petition in Crl.MP.No.10555 of 2025 before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, seeking the return of his properties. The petition was dismissed on 30.07.2025, because the supporting affidavit did not detail and correlate the listed properties with the seized items. The petitioner then moved this High Court by criminal revision.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reinforces the established fair‐hearing requirement before dismissal on procedural grounds.