- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37363 WP No. 27479 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 27479 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: MANAPURAM FINANCE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT MANAPURAM HOUSE, A.O VALAPAD TRISUSUR DISTRICT KERALA 680567 HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT KOPPAL MAIN ROAD GADAG 582101 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICE DUNDAPPA RAMAPPA HADIGANAL …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANISH JOSE ANTONY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37363 WP No. 27479 of 2025 HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560001 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER/ INVESTIGATION OFFICER SUBRAMANYA POLILCE STATION DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 574238 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE INTERFERENCE BY THE RESPONDENTS IN PETITIONER BUSINESS FOR FORCEFULLY SEIZING THE GOLD ARTICLES PLEDGED BY ITS COSTOMERS WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES UNDER SECTION 107 OF BNSS, 2023 IS ARBITRARY AND IS IN VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GURANTEED UNDER ARTICLES 19(1)(g) AND 21 AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER ART 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950 AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37363 WP No. 27479 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS LIST, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER 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']. 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37363 WP No. 27479 of 2025 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37363 WP No. 27479 of 2025 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. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB