M/s. Manappuram Finance Limited Vs The State of… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2025)

M/s. Manappuram Finance Limited Vs The State of… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of at admission stage with consent: both parties to open the petitioner's Chennur branch in the presence of respondent officials and the Regional Manager/representative at 03:00 PM on 10.09.2025 with videography; investigation officer to record details following due procedure; petitioner to co-operate with investigation; branch may continue operations without inconveniencing investigation; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in closing the petitioner's branch at Chennur, Market Road, Manchiryal District, purportedly in connection with Crime No. 219 of 2025 on the file of respondent No. 3, is illegal, void, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and whether they should be directed not to interfere with the day-to-day business activities of the petitioner. +1 more

Court's answer

Both parties were directed to open the petitioner's branch at Chennur, Market Road, Manchiryal District, in the presence of the concerned respondent officials and the Regional Manager of the petitioner company or his representative.

Ratio / Principle

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage itself.

Key takeaways

The reopening was to take place at 03:00 PM on 10.09.2025 by way of videographing.ratio¶45
The concerned investigation officer shall take up the investigation and record the details by following due procedure as contemplated under law.ratio¶47
The petitioner was directed to co-operate with the investigation.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana (N.V. Shravan Kumar, J.), disposing of a writ petition at the admission stage with consent: an NBFC gold-loan company challenged the closure of its Chennur (Manchiryal District) branch by police (respondents 3 to 5) on 24.08.2025, purportedly linked to Crime No. 219 of 2025 of Chennur Police Station — an FIR arising from a complaint by respondent No. 6 (whose Regional Manager, State Bank of India, complained of embezzlement of cash and gold by an absconding senior associate/cash-in-charge). Balancing the police version that the petitioner had itself closed the premises to avoid surrender of pledged gold against the petitioner's offer to reopen and co-operate, the Court directed both parties to open the branch jointly in the presence of respondent officials and the petitioner's Regional Manager or representative at 3:00 PM on 10.09.2025 with videography; the investigating officer to take up investigation and record details following due procedure; the petitioner to co-operate; and the branch to be free to continue operations during investigation without inconveniencing it. No order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

[^325s ]

I I I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR-TXE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Originat .turiiAiction)

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER rwo THoUSAND AND rwrr,rrv rivi

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

WRIT PETlTION NO: 26616 0 F 2025

Between:

3iirhq33'f.'i3[.f'n'lg"^{Limited, A companvil"9lqg.elpq} under the r;i;H:!"gf ;1:J33,t,lli,J!:f,",.'J:i:'?"?x,f^{";i-ii6("#)l/v33itgJ[j}

AND

...PET]TIONER

1 *:.:,:Eill13irnffi.'^{Repbv its principarsecretary,Dept or Home,}

2 The Director General of police, The DGp Office, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad J The Asst Commissioner of police, Jaipur Division, Manchiryal Dist. 4. The Sub-lnspector Of police, CCS, Manchiryal. 5. The Station House Officer, p.S.Chennur, Chennur, Manchiryal Dist., 6. Fl};it3.,:,tffjili1ilr83xrEE:n:xaiHrsailii;I'F,Tr:ffi f r

...RESPONDENTS

petition under Articre 226 0f rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue any writ or order or direc.tion more part particurarry one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by calling records, declaring the action of the respondent No. 3 to 5 in crosing the petitioner branch at chennur, Market Road, Manchiryal Dist., by craiming to be rerated to the crime No.219 of 202s on the fire of R3, as ifiegar, void, arbitrary, nufl, urtravires, unathorised and unconstitutionar and consequenry direct the respondent No. 3 and 5 to not to interfere with the day to day business activities of the petitioner.

i ! I I i ! : I

t I i l i I i I

IA NO:^{'toF 2025}

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{fired in support of the petition,the High courtmay be preased to direct} the respondent^{No. 3 to 5 not to interfere with the day to day bankingactivities of} the^{petitioner branchat Chennur, MarketRaod' Manchiryal' under the pretextof} crime No.21g^{of 2025 0 n the fire of R3, pending disposar of the above writ petition.}

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRIGOPALA RAOAMANCHARLAV}

Gounsel forthe^{Respondent Nos'1to 5: GP FOR HOME}

Counsel^{for the ResPondentNo'6:--}

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

ORDER:

w.P. No. 266L6 of 2025

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in closing the petitioner branch at chennur, Market Road, Manchiryar District by claiming it to be related to crime No.219 ot 2025 on the file of respondent No.3, AS illegal, void, arbitrary, null, ultravires, unauthor ized and uncons trtu tional and consequently, seeking a direction to respondent Nos.3 to S not to interfere with the day to day business activities of the petitioner.

The facts in brief as stated are that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and also registered as Non-Banking Finance company (NBFC) with the Reserve Bank of India'^primarily the petitioner is in the business o. facilitation of roans against the security of gold ornaments to its customers, on application and after due process of verification of identity and valuation of the securit5z. The respondent No.6 has lodged police complaint on 23.Oa.2O25 alleging that one of their officers namely Mr. Narige Ravinder, Senior Associate 1S absconding from their duties from 21.O8.2025 and further alleged that he absconded with cash and gold belongings to surrounding villagers amounting to Rs. 1 . 1o Crore (approximately) and Rs. 12.67 Crore (approximately) respectivcly. It is

2

further^{submitted that the oflicer has committed serious lapses and} he is involved^{in such activities since October'2024 'Basedon the} complaint^{filed by respondent No 6' respondent No's registereda} F.LR.No.2 i9^{ol2022 dated 23'O8 2O25 under the provisionsof} Sections^{318 (4), 3i6 (5), 314' 6l (2) (b)' 306' 371 l2l re ad with 49 ol} BNS and^{Section 65, 66 (c)' 66(D) of IT Act' It is further submitted} that respondent^{No'3 issued notice dated 23 08 '2025 tothe} requesting^{tohandoverthe loanaccounts} petitioner's^branch on sur:h^notice,the pertaining^{to 3 customers of the petitioners'} petitioner's^{branch manager handed over all the detailsof the said} roan accounts^{to rhe respondent No.3and furiyco-operating with the} invesligation.^{Inspite o[ that respondentNos'3 to 5 without any right} or authority^{closed the petitioner's branch uniiateraily on 24'08 2025} q,'ithout any notice'^{It is further submitted that police started} harassing^{the officers of the petitionercompany for surrendcr of the} orr pledge^under which are^{under secuntY} movable^{goidarlicles,} bring the^gold the Petitioner^{company to} contract^{and insisting} Questioning^thc articles,^{knowingfully well about the loan account} same , the^{present u'rit petitionis filed'}

The learned^{Government Pleader for Home has placed the} instructions^{submittedby AssistantCommissionerof Police' Jaipur} wherein^{it is submittedthat the Regional Manager''State Bankof} India,^{RBO, Manclr'erial has givencomplaint to the Station House} Officer, Chennur^{PoliceStation' Chennurrequestingl-o lodge F I R and}

,

I I i I

conduct deep investigation against their absconding staff Mr. Narige Ravinder working as senior associate and cash in charge of Chennur Branch, SBI for embezzlement of Cash and Gold ornaments belonging to general public of Chennur town and surrounding viilages amounting to Rs. 1,10,27,672 /_ and Rs.12.61 Crores (approximately) respectively and stated that there are serious lapses and irregularities committed by the said staff and in the complaint details have been mentioned. It is further submitted that they have also verified the account statements of the concerned staff, family members Lo trace out the transactions on account of mis_appropriaLron of Lhe above said funds and they found that the said members were rnvolved and supported in diversion of the funds. pima_facie they suspected that the transactions started around October, 2024 onwards and the transactions were routed from the suspects accounts during the period from O1.1O.2O24 to 2O.OS.2O25. It is submitted tha[ upon verilication of the account statemenLs of the members involved, they have found that some other members were also involved in diversion of the funds, who are not having accounts with SBl, to finalize the value of the financial transactions. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.219 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 31g (4), 316 (S), 374, 67 (2) (b), 306, 3lZ (2)read wirh 49 of BNS and Sections 65, 66_ C, 66 (D) of ITA 2OOO-2008 was registered against A_1, A_2, A_3, A-5, A-6, A-7 and others on the file of Chennur police Station. During the course of investigation, the Assistant Commissioner of police, Jaipur examined 4l witnesses and coliected documentary evrdence

4

'L
,

and as of^{now 48 accusedare involvedin this case' On 30'08'2025} A-1 to^{A-13 were arrestedand sent to judicialremand'Theabove} accused^{were arrested and producedbeforethe Court ol Judicial First} Class Magistrate^{at Chennur and the learned'Magistrate remanded} them to^{judicial custodylt is submittedthat since the accused have} pledgcd gold and^{obtarncd loan from the pe titi'oner company' the} investigating^{officer issuednotice under Section 94 BNSS'2023 dated} 23.Oa.2O24^{directing the petitioner to furnish the cletails of loan} accounl^{holders for furthcr investigation pertainingto A-4 to A-6'The} petitioner having^{received the above notice' withoutcomplyingthe} said notice,^{filed the present writ petition lt is further submitted that} except issuing^{the notice seekingdetails of loan accountsof the} persons^{who pledgecl stolen gold with the petitioner' the investigation} officer has^{not directed the petitioner to close his officeand there is no} such mention^{in the impugnednotice also ltis furLher submitted} that during^{the investigation, the investigation officer ident-ihed 195} gold loans^{obtainedby theaccused persollsatrd so larthe} investigation^{ofticerrecoveredstolen gold in175 gold loans and} remainrng^{gold from finance companiesand detailsof 175 goldloans} have been^{cxtracLed and submittedthat in the aboveloans total 17'5} Kgs gold^{was recovered from the above mentioned ltnancecompanies'} It is further^{submittedthat fromthe petitionerhnance companiesgold} about 1 142.02^{gramsgold is yet to be recoveredlt is lurther} submitted that^{the accusedhave pledgedstolen gold of sBI customers} and obtained^{1O gold loans from the petitioner finance company and}

5

I I i

I

to avoid handing over of the said gold pledged by the accused persons, the petitioner intentionally closed the finance company without co_ operating with the investigation officer and are levelling a,egations that the police are forcing the finance company authorities to close it and the same are baseless

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent authorities have closed the premises of the branch office at Chennur which is causing inconvenience to the other customers and that thev are ready to co-operate with the investigation. Learneci counser for the petitioner submits that they are rcady to opcn thc premiscs in thc presence of Regional Matlager or any persolt deputed on behalf of the Regional Manager.

On the otherhand, learned Assistant Government pleader for Home submits that subsequent to the issuance of the notice under Section 94 of BNSS dated 23.Og.2024 the petitioner themselves have closed the premises whereby the respondents are unable [o take further steps to proceed with the investigation.

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing both the parties to open the petitioner branch at Chennur, Market Road, Manchiryal District, in the presence of concerned respondent officials and the Regional Manager of the petitioner company or representative on his behatf, at o3:oo pM on 10.o9.2o25 by way of videographing ald the concerned investigation ofhcer shall

6

take up the^{invesligationand recordthe details by following due} procedure as^{conlempiated under law The petitioner is clirected to co-} operate with^{the investigation'It is also madeclear that during the} course of^{investigation, the petitioner's branch may continue its} operations^{withoutcausingany inconvenienceto the investigation} There sha[1^{be no orderas to costs}

Asa sequel, miscellaneous^{applications,ilany pending'}

shall stand^closed

SD/. AHMED^ABDULLAKHAN ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SEC N OFFICER

To, 1 The^{principal Secretary, Deptof Home' Secretariat' The State of Telangana'} Hyderabad.

The^{Director General of Police, The DGP Office' Lakdikapool'Hyderabad}

The^{AsstCommissioner of Police, Jaipur Division' Manchiryal Dist'}

The Sub-lnspector^{Of Police, CCS' Manchiryal'}

The Station^{HouseOfficer,P S'Chennur'Chennur' Manchiryal Dist '}

One CC to^{Sri GopalaRao AmancharlaV' Advocate [OPUC]}

T.TwoCCstoGPforHome,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana'at Hyderabad [OUT]

B. Two^{CD CoPies}

TJ

PVL

l I I ! i I

HIGH^COURT

CC TODAY

DATED:0910912025

ORDER

WP.No.26616^{of 2025}

:::::
a THi: S I,q
o
Y
l
1 i sEP 2[25
!l;'i,-

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

,//
.ts
/
v /4,f
lo

a'

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Closure of the petitioner's branch at Chennur, Market Road, Manchiryal District by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 on 24.08.2025, without notice or authority, purportedly in connection with Crime No. 219 of 2025.¶31
Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (police authorities) · 24.08.2025
Prior proceeding
Complaint dated 23.08.2025 lodged by respondent No. 6 (Regional Manager, State Bank of India) with the Station House Officer, Chennur Police Station, requesting lodging of FIR and deep investigation against absconding senior associate and cash-in-charge of Chennur Branch, Narige Ravinder, for embezzlement of cash and gold ornaments of the general public.¶35
Prior proceeding
Crime No. 219 of 2025 registered at Chennur Police Station against A-1, A-2, A-3, A-5, A-6, A-7 and others for offences under the cited BNS sections and Sections 65, 66(C), 66(D) of the IT Act.¶35
Prior proceeding
Respondent No. 3 issued notice dated 23.08.2025 requesting the petitioner to hand over loan accounts pertaining to 3 customers; on such notice the petitioner's branch manager handed over details of the said loan accounts and was fully co-operating with the investigation.¶31
Prior proceeding
Investigating officer issued notice under Section 94 BNSS (date printed as 23.08.2024, apparently 23.08.2025) directing the petitioner to furnish details of loan account holders pertaining to A-4 to A-6; the petitioner, without complying, filed the present writ petition.¶38
Prior proceeding
As of now 48 accused are involved; on 30.08.2025, A-1 to A-13 were arrested and sent to judicial remand, produced before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Chennur and remanded to judicial custody.¶38
Prior proceeding
During investigation the officer identified 195 gold loans obtained by the accused; stolen gold in 175 gold loans was recovered; details of 175 gold loans were extracted and in those loans a total of 17.5 kg of gold was recovered from the finance companies.¶38
Prior proceeding
About 1142.02 grams of gold from the petitioner finance companies is yet to be recovered.¶38
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's counsel submitted that closure of the branch office inconveniences other customers, that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation, and is ready to open the premises in the presence of the Regional Manager or any person deputed on his behalf.¶43
Prior proceeding
Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that subsequent to issuance of the notice under Section 94 BNSS the petitioner themselves closed the premises, leaving the respondents unable to take further steps in the investigation.¶44
Prior proceeding
Police version: to avoid handing over the gold pledged by the accused persons, the petitioner intentionally closed the finance company without co-operating with the investigation officer, and allegations that police forced the closure are baseless.¶42