Dismissed¶50

Mrs. Jayashree v. Manappuram Finance Ltd.

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2026CRL.RP/253/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; CRL.RP No. 253 of 2020; decided 13.02.2026 by S Vishwajith Shetty, J.; Jayashree v. Manappuram Finance Ltd. (Mangaluru Branch) and State of Karnataka; Section 452 Cr.P.C. custody/disposal of seized property; interim custody of seized gold articles; 'B' final report accepted and not challenged; revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C.; Kavoor Police Station; Crime No.160/2009; P.F.No.28/2010; offences under Sections 403, 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The acceptance of the 'B' final report in Crime No.160/2009 had not been questioned by the petitioner till date; appreciating this aspect, the Trial Court had allowed respondent No.1's application under Section 452 Cr.P.C. and the Appellate Court confirmed it. ¶45

Mrs. Jayashree Vs Manappuram Finance Ltd. — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 14.05.2014 of the JMFC (III Court), Mangalore allowing return of the seized gold articles to respondent No.1 under Section 452 Cr.P.C., as confirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.133/2014 on 18.09.2019, calls for interference by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶50

Court's answer

No illegality or irregularity is found in the impugned orders of the Magistrate and the Appellate Court; no interference is warranted in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, and the Court declines to entertain the petition.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

¶45

Key takeaways

The criminal revision petition is dismissed; in view of the dismissal, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and is disposed of accordingly.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. by the complainant — challenge to the order dated 14.05.2014 in P.C.No.368/2009 (Crime No.160/2009) of the JMFC (III Court), Mangalore, allowing the application of respondent No.1-finance company under Section 452 Cr.P.C. for custody of gold articles seized from its office (P.F.No.28/2010), and to the order dated 18.09.2019 in Crl.A.No.133/2014 of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru confirming it — private complaint alleging offences under Sections 403, 406 and 420 r/w 34 IPC against H. Venkatesh Kamath and another was referred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; FIR Crime No.160/2009 registered by Kavoor Police Station; investigation ended in a 'B' final report accepted by the Magistrate, which acceptance was never questioned by the petitioner, who had interim custody of the gold — no illegality or irregularity found in the impugned orders — revisional jurisdiction declined — revision petition dismissed; I.A.No.1/2019 disposed of as not surviving.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:8949 CRL.RP No. 253 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 253 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MRS. JAYASHREE W/O MR PREM KUMAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS SAI KRIPA HOUSE KARNATAKA BANK HEAD OFFICE KULSHEKAR POST, PUMP WELL MANGALURU-575 005.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. K SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD. MANGALURU BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER[LEGAL] MR KEERTHI PRASAD, S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS MANAPURA FINANCE LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, 3^RD FLOOR LAXMI KRISHNA TOWER BALMATTA ROAD, MANGALURU-575 002.

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:8949 CRL.RP No. 253 of 2020

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

KAVOOR POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560 001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. ANISH JOSE ANTONY, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R2/STATE)

¶22

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14-05-2014 IN PC 368/09 CRIME NO. 160/2009 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (III COURT) MANGALORE AND AS WELL AS DATED 18-09-2019 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 133/2014 FROM THE FILE OF VI THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS, JUDGE, MANGALURU.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The complainant is before this Court in this criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the order dated 14.05.2024 passed in P.C.No.368/2009 (Crime No.160/2009) by the Court of JMFC (III Court), Mangalore and the order dated 18.09.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.133/2014 by the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:8949 CRL.RP No. 253 of 2020

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

The petitioner herein had filed a private complaint in P.C.No.368/2009 before the Jurisdictional Court of Magistrate alleging that accused named in the complaint i.e. H. Venkatesh Kamath and another had committed offences punishable under Sections 403, 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶32

Learned Magistrate had referred the matter to the Jurisdictional Police Station for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C and it appears that FIR in Crime No.160/2009 was registered by the Kavoor Police Station, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada for the aforesaid offences. During the course of investigation of the said case, on 27.05.2010, Kavoor Police had seized certain gold articles from the office of respondent No.1-Finance Company, which was subjected to P.F.No.28/2010. It appears that subsequently the police after completing investigation had filed a 'B' final report in Crime No.160/2009. Thereafter, application under Section 452 of

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:8949 CRL.RP No. 253 of 2020

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Cr.P.C was filed by respondent No.1 herein seeking

¶37

custody of the gold articles which were seized from its office. The said application was opposed by the petitioner herein in whose favour the interim custody of the gold articles were released in Crime No.160/2009.

¶38

Learned Magistrate by order dated 14.05.2014 had allowed the application filed by respondent No.1 herein and directed the petitioner herein to hand over the gold articles to the respondent No.1-Company, subject to condition. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.133/2014 which was dismissed on 18.09.2019. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶39

In the private complaint filed by the petitioner, it is alleged that accused No.1 named in the complaint and his wife had taken her gold jewellery and subsequently, had pledged the same with respondent No.1-Finance Company without her knowledge. Alleging that the

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:8949 CRL.RP No. 253 of 2020

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

accused No.1-H. Venkatesh Kamath and his wife had committed the aforesaid offences and cheated her, the private complaint was filed. The said complaint was referred to the jurisdictional police, who had registered FIR

¶44

in Crime No.160/2009 and during the course of investigation, the gold articles which were pledged by H. Venkatesh Kamath with respondent No.1-Finance Company were seized and subjected to P.F.No.28/2010.

¶45

It is not in dispute that after completing investigation in Crime No.160/2009, the police have filed 'B' final report which is accepted by the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate. Undisputedly, the said order of acceptance of 'B' final report had not been questioned by the petitioner herein till date. Appreciating the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the Trial Court had allowed the application filed by respondent No.1 herein under Section 452 of Cr.P.C and the said order has been confirmed by

¶46

the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.133/2014. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned, which

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:8949 CRL.RP No. 253 of 2020

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

calls for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, I decline to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the revision petition

¶51

is dismissed .

¶52

In view of the dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration.

¶53

Accordingly, the same is disposed of.

¶54

SD/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶55

CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Mrs. Jayashree v. Manappuram Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Jayashree v. Manappuram Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sri Nandi Builders India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Army Housing Co. Operative Society Ltd.

S Sridhar Vs M Goutham Chand

Mr. Mohammed Usama Kandhlavi Vs Mr. Hassan Moosa

H Manjunath Vs by Superintendent of Police

Srihari N Vs R Hareesh

Sri J Nagaraj @ Wilson Garden Naga Vs State by