Mr. Suresh Babu. C. B. Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO MODIFY AND RELAX THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED IN THE ORDER DATED 14/08/2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XLV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU IN CC NO. 3090/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶33

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

¶34

3 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:15130 WP No. 34248 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

The petitioner is before the Court calling in question the conditions imposed while answering an application filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C.

¶40

The petitioner gets involved indirectly in a crime in Cr.No.40/2020, which was then pending as C.C.No.3090/2021. The accused and the complainant were different. Only the vehicle that belonged to the petitioner was involved in the crime of a commercial transaction between the accused and the complainant. The concerned Court closed the proceedings against the accused on the complainant and the accused entering into a truce. The observations of the concerned Court in Crl.RP.No.251/2021 would assume significance. It reads as follows:

¶41

”21. If the trial is conducted by wasting judicial time no purpose would be served and the wrong which is alleged is purely in private nature. The present revision petitioner in this case cheated the complainant to procure the Chairmanship of KSRTC and took Rs. 1 crore, but could not secure it. It is immaterial whether the said amount is paid back or not paid back, but there has been compromise voluntarily by the aggrieved person and the person who involved in the offence. In such cases no

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:15130 WP No. 34248 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

purpose would be served to conduct the prosecution at the cost of State Exchequer. The trial court has totally ignored this basic concept compounding the offence before the trial would facilitate the court also to reduce pendency."

¶46

The concerned Court observes that it would be

¶47

waste of judicial time to try the said offence in the light of the settlement between the parties. The petitioner, after the closure of the proceedings, files an application for release of the vehicle in his favour. The concerned Court by the impugned order allows the application by imposing the following conditions:

¶48

"ORDER

¶49

The application filed by the petitioner is allowed as follows:

¶50

The petitioner is permitted to sell the Land Rover Sport car 3.0 bearing Reg.No.KA04-MW-0123 by executing indemnity bond for sum of Rs.1 Crore and two sureties for like sum.

¶51

The I.O. is directed to conduct the panchanama and take the photo of the vehicle. He is directed to take note of the specification of the car and to submit the same to the court without any delay. The order is operating only after these panchanama, photo and details about the specification of the vehicle are produced to the court.

¶52

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15130 WP No. 34248 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

In case if this court comes to the conclusion that the vehicle is also purchased out of the proceeds of the crime, in the late stage, the petitioner is liable to pay the loss to the de-facto complainant."

¶55

The petitioner is aggrieved by all the conditions that are

¶56

imposed while allowing the application.

¶57

Learned counsel for the petitioner would take this

¶58

Court through a particular observation by the concerned Court in the impugned order. The observation is as follows:

¶59

"6. In this case, FIR was registered against the accused No.1 and other accused. The car against which permission sought is seized from the accused No. 1. In the entire charge sheet, it is not stated how the car is related to accused No.1. It is not stated that the car is used for the commission of the alleged offences. It is not stated by the I.O. that the car is purchased out of proceeds of the crime. It is interesting to note in this case that the said car stands in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner has produced the RC book, copy of the insurance, copy of the emission test report. In all these documents, it is stated that the documents stands in the name of the petitioner. In no document produced by the prosecution, the name of accused No.1 or any other accused is appearing and there is no link stated in the charge sheet regarding the connection between the said car and any of the accused including accused No.1. It is pertinent to note that all the documents pertaining to the said car stands in the name of the petitioner. Further, it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 is the defacto owner in this case. It is very important to note that the accused No.1 has filed an application

¶60

6 -

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:15130 WP No. 34248 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

seeking compounding of this case. This court has not permitted him to compound the said matter. The Revision Court i.e. the Hon'ble CCH 56, Bengaluru City in Criminal Rev. Petition No.221/2021 has permitted the accused No.1 to compound this case and he was acquitted in the said case. Therefore, this case would continue against other accused except the accused No.1. Admittedly. the vehicle under question is seized from the custody of the accused No.1. The accused No.1 or any other person except the petitioner has not put forth any claim in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner that the interim custody of the said vehicle is given to the petitioner has argued that himself and no one has objected for his custody. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat , ruling reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the interim custody of the vehicle is to be granted in favour of the person who is entitled to the possession of such vehicle. In Manjit Singh vs. State , the ruling reported in 2014 SCC online Delhi 4652, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that the owner of the vehicle can be permitted to sell the said vehicle when the physical production of that vehicle is not required in the trial and photograph of it is admissible. In second ruling i.e,. General Insurance Council Vs. State of Andhara Pradesh, ruling reported in (2010) 6 SCC, 768, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the vehicle can be released by taking photograph of that vehicle. In Nishu Chauhan Vs. State of U.P., the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has held that the Magistrate has discretionary power under U/Sec. 451 of Cr.P.C. to permit the power to sell the vehicle by imposing conditions.

¶64

In the 5th judgment, i.e, K.W.Ganapati Vs. State of Karnataka, ruling reported in ILR 2002 KAR 3751, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that the permission can be granted to the owner of the seized vehicle to alienate the vehicle, in

¶65

7 -

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:15130 WP No. 34248 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

appropriate cases by imposing the necessary conditions.

¶69

In the case on hand, the applicant seeks permission to the sell the said vehicle which was in his interim custody. As discussed above, this case against the accused No.1 stands disposed as the accused No.1 has compounded the case. It is admitted fact that the vehicle was seized from the custody of the accused No.1. The registration and other documents would reveal that the said vehicle is standing in the name of the petitioner. The careful perusal of the charge sheet would reveal that that the petitioner is not arrayed as accused and no allegation is made against the accused in this case. There are no other claimants in this case. The petitioner has stated that the value of the vehicle will be depreciated by lapse of time and he is under financial constraint. Therefore, the petitioner has made out grounds to sell the vehicle. The I.O. has not filed objections stating that the physical presence of the vehicle is required for trial. Therefore, the petitioner has made out grounds to allow the application. The apprehension of the prosecution can be meet out by imposing suitable conditions."

¶70

The concerned Court observes that the vehicle does

¶71

not belong to the accused at all and in the entire charge sheet, there is no indication that the vehicle belongs to the accused. If this was the observation and the accused and the complainant

¶72

have settled the dispute by filing a compounding application before the concerned Court, it is ununderstandable as to why the vehicle should not be handed over to the petitioner free from all conditions.

¶73

8 -

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC:15130 WP No. 34248 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶77

ORDER

¶78

i) Petition is hereby allowed .

¶79

ii) The order dated 14.08.2025 passed in C.C.No.3090/2021 by the XLV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bengaluru is hereby quashed insofar as the conditions are imposed.

¶80

iii) The vehicle shall be handed over to the petitioner free of all conditions.

¶81

Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶82

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶83

JUDGE

¶84

VM

¶85

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Mr. Suresh Babu. C. B. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Suresh Babu. C. B. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.N.Latha Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Shashidhar Subbanna Vs Veena Maravanthe

Mr Srinivas M Vs State of Karnataka

Safina Nakanyike Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Abhishek Acharya Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Vishwanath P Shimpi Vs the State of Karnataka