Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16831 (KAR)

ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/7464/2026 · 2026-03-12

Sachin Shankar Magadum

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15014 WP No. 7464 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 7464 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: 1. ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE CEEBROS MANJULA, 3RD FLOOR, OFFICE NO. 1. NEW NO.39, OLD NO.45, MONTIETH ROAD, EGMORE, OPP: INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU 600 008. HAVING ONE OF ITS BRANCH AT SHOP NO 2, FIRST FLOOR, KGM PAVALLION, KALKERE MAIN RAOD, RAMAMURTHYNAGAR, BENGALURU DT., PIN 560 016 REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND AREA MANAGER MR. BRAHMAM …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANATH S. ATHREYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001 Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15014 WP No. 7464 of 2026 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KARNATAKA-560001 BANGALORE CITY, 3. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KR PURAM POLICE STATION K.R PURAM MARKET, K.R PURAM, BANGALORE - 560036, KARNATAKA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE DIRECTION WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, PROHIBITING THE RESPONDENTS FROM ACTING CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. B. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH NOTICE DATED 03-03-2026 ISSUED U/S 94 OF BNSS ANNEXURE-E. C. PASS AN ORDER THEREBY DIRECTING THAT DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS PRESENT PETITION, THE RESPONDENTS ARE RESTRAINED FROM TAKING ANY COERCIVE ACTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND NOT TO INTERFERE IN THE DAY-TO-DAY BUSINESS OF THE PETITIONER IN ITS PREMISES AND OR AT OTHER PLACES WHERE THE PETITIONERS EMPLOYEES ARE WORKING. D. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS FROM ACTING CONTRARY TO LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15014 WP No. 7464 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Petitioner is assailing the impugned notice dated 3.3.2026 wherein the Investigating Officer acting under Section 106 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS, 2023") has called upon petitioner to produce the gold articles. Petitioner is also seeking a direction in the nature of prohibition directing respondents not to act contrary to the provisions of law and further has sought for issuance of a mandamus to direct the respondents not to take coercive action against the petitioner and not to interfere in the day-to-day business of the petitioner in its premises. 2. The question relating to the power of the Investigating Officer to summon the petitioner to produce the gold articles for the purpose of examining whether the pledged articles are stolen from the private respondents is no longer res integra. The said issue stands squarely addressed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in IIFL Finance Limited vs. State of Karnataka and Another - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15014 WP No. 7464 of 2026 [WP No.31057/2025, disposed of on 04.02.2026]. The Co-ordinate Bench, while examining the scope of Sections 94 and 106 of the BNSS, 2023, has categorically held that the Investigating Officer is empowered to call upon a person to produce articles and is also competent to seize gold articles if there is a reasonable suspicion that the same are stolen property. It is further held that a person to whom notice is issued under Section 94 of the BNSS, 2023 does not possess an enforceable right to challenge such notice at the threshold. 3. In the light of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement, this Court is of the view that interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at the stage of investigation, is unwarranted. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned notice. 4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate, in the event of seizure of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15014 WP No. 7464 of 2026 gold articles by the Investigating Officer, and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44