Disposed

Manappuram Finance Ltd., v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2024WP/26144/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A gold-loan finance company challenged police notices issued under CrPC. Relying on its earlier order granting conditional restoration of seized gold articles to a similarly situated company, the High Court extended the same relief and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of extending the conditional restoration relief granted in W.P.No.13958/2023 to the petitioner.

Manappuram Finance Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39496 WP No. 26144 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 26144 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MANAPURAM HOUSE, A .O. VALAPAD, TRISSUR DISTRICT KERALA - 680 567 HAVING ONE OF ITS BRANCH AT:HASSAN MYSORE ROAD, K H NO 836, 1^ST FLOOR, CORPORATION BANK BUILDING OPP. HASSAN RURAL POLICE STATION, N.R. CIRCLE, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201 REP. BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AND AREA HEAD MR. DAVID RAJ.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SANATH S. ATREYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. POORNA PRASAD K.R., ADVOCATE)

¶10

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY KARNATAKA - 560 001.

¶14

THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 198, SUBEDAR CHATRAM ROAD

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39496 WP No. 26144 of 2024

¶16

SESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560 020. (R-3 CAUSE TITLE CORRECTED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 23.09.2024)

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICES BOTH DATED 20/09/2024 ISSUED OF THE CRPC ADDRESSED TO MANAPURAM FINANCE LIMITED, THE PETITIONER HEREIN, BY THE R3, FURNISHED AS ANN-E AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayers:

¶24

"a) To quash the notice/s both dated 20.09.2024 issued of the Cr P C addressed to Manapuram Finance Limited, the Petitioner herein, by the Respondent No.3, furnished as Annexure-E bearing No.¹1¦J¸ï/ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.90/2024.

¶25

b) Issue direction writ of mandamus or order or direction directing the respondent police 3 not to proceed with the notice dated 20.09.2024 and furnished as Annexur-E.

¶26

c) Pass an order thereby directing that during the pendency of this present petition, the Respondents are restrained from taking any coercive

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39496 WP No. 26144 of 2024

¶28

action against the petitioner and not to interfere in the day-to-day business of the petitioner in its premises office at Manapuram Finance Limited, Hassan Mysore Road KH NO.836, Ist Floor, Corporation Bank Building, Opp.Hassan Rural Police Station, N R Circle, Hassa Dt., Pin - 573201 and or at other places where the petitioners' employees are working.

¶29

d) And grant such other relief or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶30

Heard Sri. Sanath S. Atreya, learned counsel for Sri. Poorna Prasad K.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Rahul Cariappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

¶31

Both the learned counsel would submit that this Court in similar circumstance has taken a consistent view in W.P.No.13958/2023. The order dated 10-07-2023 passed in W.P.No.13958/2023, reads as follows:

¶32

"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.

¶33

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

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39496 WP No. 26144 of 2024

¶35

with the main matter as if it is a part of the pleadings and this has been done with the consent of Bar.

¶36

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:

¶37

"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."

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:39496 WP No. 26144 of 2024

¶43

Costs made easy."

¶44

The aforesaid order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is in fact followed by this Court in plethora of cases concerning Muthoot Finance.

¶45

The present petition is by Manappuram Finance Limited, which is similarly situated and has projected the similar problem. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the same relief that is granted to the Muthoot Finance Limited supra .

¶46

In the light of the relief granted supra by the Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid petition, the petition stands disposed of.

¶47

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶48

BKM

Manappuram Finance Ltd., v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manappuram Finance Ltd., v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Soumya Raghuveer Vs the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps

Manjula Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Kavitha N.M. Vs the Managing Director

Smt. Subhadramma Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri.P Guruswamy Vs the Stateof Karnataka

M/S Legends Culture Association (R) Vs State of Karnataka