Disposed

M/S Muthoot Finance Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2024WP/1015/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a gold finance company challenging police notices and seizure of gold articles. The Court disposed of the petition on the terms laid down in a previous coordinate bench judgment, directing restoration of seized articles videographed and photographed, subject to an undertaking to produce them if needed.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of writ petition on terms directing restoration of seized articles videographed and photographed, subject to undertaking to produce them for police or court.

M/S Muthoot Finance Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:1682 WP No. 1015 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 1015 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD., V.V.PURAM BRANCH, 53/58, CHAKRAVARTHY COMPLEX, SAJJANRAO CIRCLE, VV PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY OR ASSISTANT MANAGER, SRI. MANJUNATHA S.C., S/O ESHWARAPPA, THE REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SHOPS AND COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT 1961.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VENKATARAMANA K.S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K

¶11

AND:

¶12

Location: HIGH 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA COURT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

BASAVANAGUDI POLICE BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER (PSI) KR ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:1682 WP No. 1015 of 2024

¶16

HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH, HCGP)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE NOTICES DATED 06/01/2024 PASSED BY R2 VIDE ANNEXURED AND E AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard the learned counsel Sri. K.S. Venkataramana, appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Manjunath, the learned HCGP appearing for the respondents.

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the

¶24

following prayers:

¶25

"A) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the Notices dated.06.01.2024 passed by 2nd respondent vide ANNEXURE-D and E .

¶26

B) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful business of the petitioner's company in respect of the loan transactions which is the subject matter of this petition.

¶27

C) Grant such other order/s as this honorable court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

¶29

submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:1682 WP No. 1015 of 2024

¶32

rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.13958/2023 disposed on 10.07.2023, wherein it has held as follows:

¶33

“The grievance of the petitioner is as to police seizing certain gold articles on the suspicion of the same being involved in a crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client's company has been running the business inter alia of selling & buying of gold ornaments. If the said articles are bought bona fide, the police cannot barge into the premises and take away the same on the pretext that they are needed for investigation in some offence.

¶34

2. Petitioner has moved an application in I.A. No.1/2023 supported by an affidavit seeking leave of the Court stating certain new facts that have happened after the filing of petition. The said application is heard along with the main matter as if it is a part of the pleadings and this has been done with the consent of Bar.

¶35

3. Learned AGA appearing for the respondent opposes the petition inter alia contending that investigation has been explained by the Apex Court in M.T.ENRICA LEXIE vs. DORAMMA, (2012) 6 SCC 760 at Paragraph 14, as under:

¶36

"The police officer in course of investigation can seize any property under Section 102 if such property is alleged to be stolen or is suspected to be stolen or is the object of the crime under investigation or has direct link with the commission of offence for which the police officer is investigating into. A property not suspected of commission of the offence which is being investigated into by the police officer cannot be seized. Under Section 102 of the Code, the police officer can seize such property which is covered by Section 102(1) and no other."

¶37

That being the position, no fault can be attributed to the jurisdictional police in seizing the articles and retaining the same, subject to outcome of the investigation/trial.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:1682 WP No. 1015 of 2024

¶40

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant conditional indulgence in the matter to the effect that the seized articles be restored to the petitioner after taking videograph & photographs of the same provided that petitioner furnishes an undertaking to produce the same if & when needed by the police or court in the enquiry, investigation or in the trial of the proceedings. The said articles shall not be converted, pledged or sold or otherwise disposed off till after and subject to outcome of the criminal case concerned. This would do justice to both the sides.

¶41

With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed off directing the police to restore the seized articles to the petitioner forthwith; if other articles are needed, then also the same procedure shall be followed. If the articles are already produced before the jurisdictional court, the learned Magistrate is requested to release the same in favour of the petitioner subject to the terms hereinabove mentioned and such other usual terms.

¶42

Costs made easy.”

¶43

In the light of the issue standing covered by judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench supra , the petition stands disposed on the same terms.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

SJK

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT:SNN

M/S Muthoot Finance Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Muthoot Finance Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Niranjan Kumar Dadhichi Vs the Bangalore City Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Sri.S.Nagaraju Vs Smt.Mangala

Topsack Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Kaveri Diagnostic Center Vs the District Health Officer

Sri Wajid Shariff Vs Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

Mr Subramanya Rao K Vs the Authorized Officer Canara Bank