- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11524 CRL.RP No. 845 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 845 OF 2024 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SMT DEEPIKA D C W/O DINESH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.718, 42ND CROSS 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560010 2. SRI RAMESH G S S/O SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.411, SRI RANGANATHA NILAYA 10TH MAIN, SAMPIGE LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BANGALORE-40 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVAMURTHI A R, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BY RAJAJINAGAR POLICE STATION CID BANGALORE, REP BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, HCGP) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11524 CRL.RP No. 845 of 2024 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.09.2023 IN CR.97/2021 IN RESPECT OF THE SAID AUDI A6 CAR BEARING CHASSIS NO.WAUZHH4G4JY000184, TEMPORARY REGISTRATION NO.KA-01-NT-2526 IN P.F. NO.47/2021, TOYOTA INNOVA BEARING CHASSIS NO.MBJAA3EM900798621-0619, ENGINE NO.IGDA331789, REGISTRATION NO.KA-02-MP-7131 IN P.F.NO.47/2021 AND TOYOTA INNOVA TOURING SPORT DSL BEARING CHASSIS NO.MBJAA3EM5007704890417, ENGINE NO.1GDA093766, REGISTRATION NO.KA-02-MM-4936 IN P.F.NO.2/2021 ON THE FIE OF THE PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C, to set aside the order dated 05.09.2023, in Cr.No.97/2021, on the file Prl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby their applications filed under Section 451 and 457 Cr.P.C, for release of Audi-A6 and Toyota Innova to their respective interim possession came to be rejected. 2. Petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the ground that the same is based upon - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11524 CRL.RP No. 845 of 2024 improbabilities, surmises and conjectures. The Court has erred by misapplying the law and proper appreciation of the facts comprehensively. It has really failed to appreciate the fact that the vehicles are no longer required for the purpose of investigation. The petitioners required the vehicles for their day-to-day use. If they are kept idly exposed to sun and rain, they will lose its value. In the same crime number, as per order at Annexture- K one more vehicle is released to the interim custody of the applicant therein. Subsequent to the rejection of application filed by the petitioners, the same Court has allowed one more application filed by one Shivanna and Santosh M.S. Petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed and of substantiality to the satisfaction of the trial Court, and hence the petition. 3. Learned HCGP submitted oral objections stating a complaint came to be filed to the effect that accused Dinesh M.S @ Dinesh S.Gouda is the owner of Brindavan - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11524 CRL.RP No. 845 of 2024 properties. He issued an advertisement in public TV news channel offering sites for sale. When complainant contacted him at the exhibition conducted at Malleshwaram ground, site measuring 30’ x 40’ feet were offered at Rs.7,20,000/-. Accordingly, he booked two sites by paying Rs.14,40,000/- through two cheques and the cheques have been honoured. However, he has been cheated. Similar to him, many people are cheated by the accused. 4. On the basis of the complaint, case in Cr.No.97/2021 is registered. During investigation, the investigating officer has seized several movable and immovable properties belonging to the said company including the cars in question. 5. Learned HCGP submitted oral objections stating that initially provisions of IPC and BUDS Act 2019 were revoked. Later provisions of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act (for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11524 CRL.RP No. 845 of 2024 short ‘KPIDFE Act’) is invoked. Notification dated 07.12.2022 under Section 3(2) of KPIDFE Act is issued, attaching the movable and immovable properties as specified in the Annexures, vesting the same with the competent authority subject to the orders from the Special Court. Therefore, now the matter rests with the competent authority subject to the orders from the Special Court. Therefore, the petition before the regular Court is not maintainable and the petitioners are required to approach the Competent Authority and thereafter the Special Court and pray to reject the petitions. 6. Heard arguments and perused the record. 7. Thus, it is the specific case of the prosecution that accused Dinesh M.S @ Dinesh S.Gouda is the owner of Brindavan properties. Through TV advertisement and conducting an exhibition at Malleshwaram ground, he invited investment by the general public for purchasing sites at low cost. With the investment received, he has - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11524 CRL.RP No. 845 of 2024 acquired various movable and immovable properties in his name and also in the name of his relatives and employees, etc. After he failed to keep up with his promise in providing sites to the investors, a complaint came to be filed. It was registered under the provisions of IPC and BUDS Act. Later provisions of KPIDFE are also invoked. The Competent Authority is appointed and the matter comes under the jurisdiction of Special Court. Such being the case, the regular Court is not having the jurisdiction to decide these matters, including release of properties. 8. When similar application filed by accused - Dinesh M.S @ Dinesh S.Gouda was allowed by the Prl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, the Notification was yet to be issued. While allowing the application filed by one Shivanna and Santosh M.S, the said Court has not taken into consideration the Notification issued appointing Competent Authority. Therefore, the said orders cannot be taken into consideration. In the result, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Of course, in the light of the Notification - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11524 CRL.RP No. 845 of 2024 in question the petitioners are at liberty to approach the Competent Authority in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the petition fails and accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by the petitioners under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C is rejected. (ii) The impugned order dated: 05.09.2023 in Cr.No.97/2021, on the file of Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is confirmed. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50