- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42610-DB WA No. 1653 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1653 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SMT. GOURAMMA H AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS W/O RANGASWAMY NO.21, 2ND CROSS, SHARADA RESIDENCY, BHEL LAYOUT, RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560098 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MAHESH M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MUTHOOT FINANCE LIMITED BRANCH AT NO. 434, 60TH FEET ROAD, THIMMAIAH ROAD, MANJUNATHA NAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU- 560010 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42610-DB WA No. 1653 of 2024 VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560001 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU- 560085 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANISH JOSE ANTONY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER 19.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 25563/2024 (GM-POLICE) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons stated in the applications, IA.No.2/2024 and IA.No.1/2024, the same are allowed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42610-DB WA No. 1653 of 2024 2. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.25563/2024 (GM-Police). 3. The respondent No.1 [Muthoot Finance Limited – hereafter MFL] had filed the said petition impugning the action of the police authorities in forcefully seizing gold articles that were pledged by its customers with it. MFL claims that the said action was in violation of its right to carry on business. 4. MFL is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the Reserve Bank of India has registered it to conduct business as a Non-Banking Financial Company [NBFC] under the provisions of Chapter III B of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. MFL claimed that it had, during the course of its business, advanced sums against collateral of gold ornaments that were pledged with it. The said goods was sought to be seized by the police authorities on the allegation that the same were stolen property. 5. The learned Single Judge had, following the decision of the Supreme Court in M.T.Enrica Lexie vs. Dorama: (2012) 6 SCC 760, granted partial relief to MFL and had directed release of the said goods subject to certain conditions. In terms of the said - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42610-DB WA No. 1653 of 2024 decision, the goods in question were directed to be restored to MFL after taking videographs and photographs of the same and on MFL furnishing an undertaking to produce the same if and when needed by the police or Court in the inquiry, investigation or at the trial. Additionally, it was directed that the articles in question would not be converted, pledged or sold or otherwise disposed of till after and subject to the outcome of the concerned criminal case. 6. The appellant claims to be the lawful owner of the goods in question and it is at her instance that the FIR was lodged. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Muthoot Fincorp Limited vs. The Station House Officer & Ors., : Crl.A.No.1026/2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9539/2023. The said order sets out the terms of undertaking furnished by MFL in that case. The said order dated 19.2.2024 is set out below: 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. On the last date, we expressed our prima facie view that there was no justification for taking action under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the CrPC’). - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42610-DB WA No. 1653 of 2024 4. There is an additional affidavit dated 16.02.2024 filed by the authorized officer of the petitioner, Shri Amit Kumar Narang. Paragraph ‘4’ of the said affidavit incorporating the undertaking, which reads thus: - “4.That the Petitioner respectfully prays to this Hon’ble Court to set aside the Impugned Order dated 15.06.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WP (C) No. 4332/2021, the Impugned Order dated 21.06.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WA No. 1184 of 2023 and the Impugned Notice dated 15.02.2021 issued under Section 91, CrPC (Annexure P-14 to the Special Leave Petition), and permit the Petitioner to retain custody of the ornaments pledged with it (including those that are claimed to be the case property). In this regard, the Petitioner unequivocally undertakes as under: (i) That the Petitioner shall produce the pledged ornaments as and when called by the Investigating Officer/Respondent No. 1 for inspection of the same, and also permit taking photographs and making the panchnama, if so required. (ii) That the Petitioner shall produce the pledged ornaments before the concerned Court as and when directed by the concerned Court in relation to the FIR/ Crime No. 53/2021 dated 09.02.2021. (iii) That the Petitioner shall not handover the pledged ornaments to the pledgor (Respondent No. 3) or any other person representing him or permit redemption of the pledges, without prior permission from the concerned Court trying the FIR. (iv) That the Petitioner shall not sell, dispose of, or part with possession of the pledged ornaments without prior permission from the concerned Court trying the FIR.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42610-DB WA No. 1653 of 2024 5. The undertaking of the petitioner is taken on record. A copy of the undertaking shall be forwarded by the Registry to the Trial Court. 6. The impugned orders are set aside and substituted by the order in terms of the undertaking quoted above. 7. We, however, make it clear that as the action/order under Section 91 of the CrPC has been set aside, no further steps can be taken on the basis of the same. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 8. The learned counsel for MFL had also referred to an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Manappuram Finance Limited vs. The State of Karnataka and Anr.: NC:2025:KHC:37363, whereby the Court had accepted that if there were any grounds for seizure of jewellery from the custody of the writ petitioner, the seizure is required to be in compliance with the procedure as contemplated under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023. The said order is set out below: The petitioner, a company incorporated as a non- banking financial corporation, apprehends the possibility of the jurisdictional police [the second respondent] seizing jewellery pledged by its borrower. The petitioner seeks for declaration that the jewellery cannot be seized unless there is compliance with due procedure under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surkasha Sanhit, 2023 [for short, 'BNSS']. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42610-DB WA No. 1653 of 2024 2. Mr. Anish Jose Antony, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner reasonably apprehends seizure and disposal of the seized jewellery because of the complaint filed by Mr. Praveen Kumar despite stating that he had seen the cupboard with the jewellery on 01.08.2025, but the second respondent has issued notice for production of jewellery pledged even much prior to such date. 3. Mr Rahul Cariappa, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, is heard in the light of this grievance and on the perusal of records. This Court cannot enter into merits of the petitioner's grievance at this stage, but what remains beyond dispute is that if there is any reason for seizure of jewellery from the petitioner’s custody, it must be in due compliance with the procedure contemplated under Section 107 of BNSS and with a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to avail remedy under Section 497 of BNSS. 4. This Court must further opine that under no circumstance, the second respondent can, if any jewellery is seized from the petitioner's custody on the basis of the complaint by Mr. Praveen Kumar, hand over the custody to any unless there are due orders from the concerned Court. The petition stands disposed of with observation and liberty as afore. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. We, however, clarify that this would not preclude the concerned Magistrate from conducting an inquiry in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders, at an appropriate stage, for restoring the property to its rightful owner in accordance with law. We are informed that the appellant has already filed an application before the concerned Magistrate. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42610-DB WA No. 1653 of 2024 Needless to say that the same would be considered at an appropriate stage in accordance with law. 10. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. 11. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45