- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16055 WP No. 7571 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 7571 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: KLM AXIVA FINVEST LTD. HAVING ONE OF ITS BRANCH HAVING AT NO. 163/3A, OPP. DASARAHALLI METRO STATION HIGHWAY ROAD, VIDHYANAGAR, T. DASARAHALLI BANGALORE 560057 REP. BY ITS REGION MANGER MR. VENKATESHA MR …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANISH JOSE ANTONY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560 001 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER/INVESTIGATION OFFICER MADANAYAKAHALLI POLICE STATION NELAMANGALA 562123 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16055 WP No. 7571 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. DECLARE THAT THE INTERFERENCE BY THE RESPONDENTS IN SEIZING THE GOLD ARTICLES PLEDGED BY ITS CUSTOMERS OF THE PETITIONER BY THREATENING TO ARREST 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. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION BE ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RESTORE THE SEIZED GOLD ARTICLES VIDE ANNEXURE-F DATED 21.02.2026 TO THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Captioned petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "A. Declare that the interference by the Respondents in seizing the gold articles pledged by its customers of the petitioner by threatening to arrest 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. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction be issued to the 2nd - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16055 WP No. 7571 of 2026 Respondent to restore the seized gold articles vide Annexure-F dated 21.02.2026 to the petitioner in the interest of justice and equity. C. And grant such other relief or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. Petitioner a Non-Banking Financial Company registered with Reserve Bank of India is asserting that a borrower had pledged certain gold articles on 31.12.2025 and obtained loan from the petitioner. On a complaint lodged on 5.4.2019 by one Smt. Leena, alleging theft of 248 grams of gold articles, a crime is registered by respondent No.2 in Cr.No.0680/2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 305(a), 331(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and respondent No.2 under the garb of investigation has issued a notice under Section 94(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS, 2023") and has seized the entire gold articles pledged in the name of accused Muniraju. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16055 WP No. 7571 of 2026 3. Petitioner's counsel questioning the action of the Investigating Officer in seizing the gold articles, has placed reliance on the order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench in an identical case and has contended that the physical removal of the properties from the custody of the petitioner who is a non-banking financial company is not required for collecting evidence. He further submits that petitioner is advancing loans to the customers by accepting the gold as security and therefore, contends that the Investigating Officer cannot indiscriminately seize the gold articles pledged by borrowers/ customers. Emphasis is laid on the data that 90% of the cases where properties were seized have resulted into acquittal and the properties were never returned to the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: "(a) Crl.A.No.1026/2024 [Muthoot Fincorp Limited .vs. The Station House Officer and others; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16055 WP No. 7571 of 2026 (b) Spl.Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.14956/2025 [Manappuram Asset Finance Limited .vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others]; (c) W.P.No.21838/2025(GM-POLICE) [Muthoot Finance Limited .vs. The State of Karnataka and Another]; (d) Crl.P.No.10023/2025 [Keerthana Finserv Private Limited .vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh]; (e) W.P.No.25540/2023 [Mannappuram Asset Finance Limited .vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh]; (f) W.P.No.25563/2024(GM-POLICE) [Muthoot Finance Limited .vs. The State of Karnataka]; (g) W.A.No.1653/2024(GM-POLICE) [Smt. Gouramma H .vs. Muthoot Finance Limited and Others]; (h) W.P.No.27479/2025(GM-Police) [Manapuram Finance Limited .vs. State of Karnataka and others]; (i) 2025 SCC Online Ker 3546[Headstar Global Pvt. Limited .vs. State of Kerala]; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16055 WP No. 7571 of 2026 (j) (2019) 20 SCC 119 [Nevada Properties (P) Limited .vs. State of Maharashtra; (k) W.A.No.1913/2025(GM-Police) [Mannapuram Finance Limited .vs. State of Karnataka] (l) W.P.No.4347/2026(GM-Police) Muthoot Finance Limited .vs. State of Karnataka; and (m) 2026 SCC Online Del 297 [Malabar Gold & Diamond Limited .vs. Union of India]" 4. Per contra, counsel appearing for respondents/State supporting the action of the Investigating Officer submits that Section 106 of BNSS, 2023, empowers the Investigating Officer to secure the suspected properties and therefore, it is contended that seizure under the above said provisions is incidental to the power of the investigation and hence, prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the material placed on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16055 WP No. 7571 of 2026 record, this Court is of the considered view that the contention urged by the petitioner questioning the seizure effected by the Investigating Officer cannot be examined in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, entertains a reasonable belief that the property in question constitutes stolen property or property suspected to have been stolen, the officer is statutorily empowered to effect seizure in exercise of powers conferred under Section 106 of the BNSS, 2023. Such seizure forms an integral part of the investigative process undertaken by the police and ordinarily the legality or propriety of such investigative steps would not fall for examination in a writ petition unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the reported judgment rendered in IIFL Finance Limited vs. State of Karnataka and another [WP.No.31057/2025 dated 04.02.2026], while examining a similar issue, has categorically held that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16055 WP No. 7571 of 2026 Investigating Officer is statutorily empowered under Section 106 of BNSS, 2023 to seize property alleged or suspected to have been stolen during the course of investigation. 6. This Court is further of the view that the statutory framework itself provides an efficacious and adequate remedy to a person who is aggrieved by seizure of property during investigation. Section 497 of the BNSS, 2023 empowers the jurisdictional Magistrate to pass appropriate orders with regard to custody, interim release or disposal of property seized during investigation. The said provision enables the Magistrate to examine the nature of the property, the competing claims of the parties and the requirements of investigation, and thereafter pass suitable orders governing the interim custody or release of the property. When the statute provides a specific mechanism for redressal of grievances relating to seized property, this Court would ordinarily decline to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16055 WP No. 7571 of 2026 particularly when the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 7. In view of the availability of such statutory remedy and having regard to the settled principle that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail the remedy available under Section 497 of the BNSS, 2023 before the jurisdictional Magistrate and seek appropriate orders with regard to the custody or release of the seized property in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed reserving the aforesaid liberty. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3