- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31232 WP No. 23925 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 23925 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: MANAPPURAM FINANCE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES 1956, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT MANAPURAM HOUSE, A O VALAPAD, TRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA -680567, HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT KR ROAD BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BUILDING NO. 39/35, 1 FLOOR, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, NEAR HUNISEMARA SIGNAL, BENGALURU, BENGALURU DT PIN- 560070 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICE ASHOK E. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANISH JOSE ANTONY.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560 001. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31232 WP No. 23925 of 2025 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER/ INVESTIGATION OFFICER JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION 7TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, NEAR ACM GROUP OF INSTITUTION, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU KARNATAKA, 560041. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. DECLARE THAT THE INTERFERENCE BY THE RESPONDENTS IN PETITIONER BUSINESS FOR FORCEFULLY SEIZING THE GOLD ARTICLES PLEDGED BY IT COSTUMERS IS ARBITRARY AND IS IN VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLES 19(1)(G) AND 21 AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER ART 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950. B. CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE ANNEXURE D DATED 01.08.2025 AND ANNEXURE F DATED 02.08.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND QUASH THE SAME AND CONSEQUENTIALLY DIRECT THE RESTORATION OF GOLD ARTICLES SEIZED FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE PETITIONERS IN SIMILAR TERMS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MUTHOOT FINCORP LTD. V/S THE SHO AND ORS IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1026/2024 (ANNEXURE -G). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31232 WP No. 23925 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is a non-banking financial company registered with the Reserve Bank of India under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The petitioner is in the business of receiving gold articles under a pledge. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Notice dated 01.08.2025 [Annexure-D] under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [for short, ‘the BNSS’], and the second respondent has issued this notice listing 13 gold jewelry directing the petitioner to hand over such jewelry if further action is to be avoided. 2. Sri Anish Jose Antony, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the second respondent has also recovered possession of the jewelry allegedly because it is wanted in many cases; - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31232 WP No. 23925 of 2025 that the second respondent will release the jewelry to the de facto complainant/s against an inconsequential indemnity bond. The learned counsel also submits that if the second respondent releases the jewelry to the de facto complainant/s, the petitioner will never have the benefit of the jewelry seized although the jewelry was pledged four years back and the de facto complainant speaks nothing about the action taken in the last four years about the jewelry allegedly lost. 3. Sri Anish Jose Antony underscores that the second respondent has issued the impugned notice in exercise of the impermissible power to decide upon the ownership of the jewelry, and insofar as the question of law, the learned counsel presents that: [i] the petitioner's right to the jewelry legally got cannot be undermined - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31232 WP No. 23925 of 2025 otherwise by the procedure established by law, [ii] the Apex Court in 'Muthoot Fincorp Limited v. The SHO and others'1 has permitted an entity such as the petitioner to retain the interim custody of the jewelry subject to producing it for investigation and as directed by the concerned Criminal Court, [iii] this Court following the afore, has disposed of similar petitions permitting the petitioner and other similarly placed entities to take custody of the jewelry subject to filing an undertaking incorporating the afore terms. 4. Sri Rahul Cariappa, the learned Additional Government Advocate, is heard on these grounds. The learned Additional Government Advocate invites 1 Criminal Appeal No.1026/2024 disposed of on 19.02.2024 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31232 WP No. 23925 of 2025 this Court's attention to Section 497 of BNSS and canvasses that every circumstance that is relied on behalf of the petitioner can be considered by the learned Magistrate and a just decision taken. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that therefore it would be just and proper to dispose of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to apply under Section 497 of BNSS with the learned Magistrate with whom the FIR in the corresponding crime number is filed. 5. The foremost that must be emphasized is that the Investigating Officer cannot decide on the title to the jewelry and that must be established based on the outcome in the investigation and subject to the orders of the concerned Court. The second aspect that must be emphasized is that the onus in law is on the Investigating Officer to ensure that any article that is recovered/seized during the investigation is not diluted and the custody does not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31232 WP No. 23925 of 2025 become a wedge to drive a bargain. If the Investigating Officers fail on this score, or give an impression that there could be a failure on this score, the concerned could be constrained perhaps to invoke this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the statutory provisions. 6. As such, this Court is of the view that there must be directions in the present petition in this regard. In so far as the assertion that the jewelry was pledged four years back and the de facto complainant’s failure to explain action taken about the loss of jewelry, this Court must observe that these are circumstances which must be considered by the learned Magistrate when an application under Section 497 of BNSS is filed, and the petitioner must therefore be called upon to invoke such jurisdiction. In the light of the afore, the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31232 WP No. 23925 of 2025 ORDER [a] The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 497 of BNSS with the concerned learned Magistrate, and calling upon the learned Magistrate to dispose of such applications to ensure that the jewelry is available until the very end of the outcome in the investigation and the trial. [b] the Station House Officer shall take every such measure as would be necessary, to ensure that the jewelry seized under Annexure-D is available to be given subject to the orders under Section 497 of BNSS. [c] It is needless to observe that if there is any occasion for any complaint about the availability or the description of the jewelry - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31232 WP No. 23925 of 2025 seized under the impugned notice the concerned within the hierarchy of the State Police will have to take action. The petitioner is also reserved with liberty in this regard. [c] The Registry is directed to forward a certified copy of this order to the Director General and Inspector General of Police for due consideration and circulation of this Court's observations. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-