Shri G Shivakumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shri G Shivakumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere with (quash) the impugned common order dated 26.08.2023 of the VII Additional C.M.M., Bengaluru, in C.C.No.11114/2020, whereby the complainant-petitioner's application under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. for interim custody of the seized gold ornaments was rejected and interim custody was granted to respondent No.2-Accused No.2. +1 more

Court's answer

The trial Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application for interim custody and allowing the application filed by respondent No.2.

Ratio / Principle

As an undisputed fact, the jewels whose custody the petitioner sought neither belong to the petitioner nor were they seized from his custody or possession; they were seized from the custody/possession of the mother of the fiancée of respondent No.2.

Key takeaways

While allowing respondent No.2's application for interim custody, the trial Court imposed sufficient safeguards and conditions which would protect the petitioner's interest in the event he succeeds in the case.ratio¶44
There is no ground for the High Court to interfere with the impugned order; the criminal petition is accordingly dismissed.ratio¶45
All rival contentions in C.C.No.11114/2020 are kept open and no opinion is expressed on them by this Court.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. by the complainant in C.C.No.11114/2020 (Crime No.217/2019, Amruthahalli Police Station) challenging the common order dated 26.08.2023 of the VII Additional C.M.M., Bengaluru, which rejected his application under Sections 451/457 Cr.P.C. for interim custody of gold ornaments (P.F.No.99/2019) seized from one Kavithananda (mother of Accused No.2's fiancée) and granted interim custody to respondent No.2-Accused No.2 subject to conditions (including an indemnity bond of Rs.10,00,000/- with surety, no alienation, preservation of identity of the ornaments, production when directed and photographs before release). Held: the jewels neither belong to the complainant-petitioner nor were they seized from his custody or possession; the trial Court was fully justified, and the safeguards imposed protect the petitioner's interest if he succeeds in the case; no ground to interfere. Petition dismissed; all rival contentions in C.C.No.11114/2020 kept open, no opinion expressed. Earlier round: this Court in Crl.P.No.2420/2020 (order dated 09.03.2021) had set aside the initial grant of interim custody to the petitioner and remitted the matter for reconsideration of both sides' applications.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Common order dated 26.08.2023 in C.C.No.11114/2020 rejecting complainant Shivakumar's application under Ss.451/457 Cr.P.C. (dt. 24.12.2019) for interim custody of the seized gold ornaments (P.F.No.99/2019) and directing him to produce the articles released in his favour per order dated 20.01.2020 before the I.O. on or before 08.09.2023; allowing Accused No.2's application (dt. 16.12.2021) and granting him interim custody of the gold ornaments subject to conditions: indemnity bond of Rs.10,00,000/- with surety, no alienation till disposal of the case, no change of identity of the ornaments, production before Court/police as directed, and photographs of the ornaments before release at applicant's cost.¶23
VII Additional C.M.M., Bengaluru (trial Court) · 26.08.2023
Prior proceeding
Complainant-petitioner filed a complaint on 10.12.2019 registered as Crime No.217/2019 against respondent No.2-Accused No.2 and accused Nos.1 and 3 for alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 423, 465, 471, 482, 483 and 109 read with Section 34 IPC (cause-title list additionally cites Section 424).¶24
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to the FIR, charge sheet was filed by respondent No.1-Police; proceedings in C.C.No.11114/2020 pending before the trial Court.¶27
Prior proceeding
Complainant filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. dated 24.12.2019 seeking interim custody of the gold jewels.¶27
Prior proceeding
The gold jewels had been seized by respondent No.1-Police from one Kavithananda, mother of the fiancée of respondent No.2.¶27
Prior proceeding
By order dated 02.01.2020 the trial Court directed interim custody to be granted in favour of the petitioner (source spells 'trail Court').¶27
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 challenged that order in Crl.P.No.2420/2020; this Court disposed of it vide order dated 09.03.2021, setting aside the order granting interim custody to the petitioner.¶27
Prior proceeding
Matter remitted back to the trial Court for re-consideration of the petitioner's application as well as respondent No.2's application for interim custody dated 16.12.2021.¶27
Prior proceeding
After hearing the parties on remand, the trial Court passed the impugned common order dismissing the complainant's application and allowing respondent No.2-Accused No.2's similar application.¶23