- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26991 WP No. 4679 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 4679 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: 1. MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT GROUND FLOOR MUTHOOT TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, OPPOSITE ABAD PLAZA ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM, KERALA - 682 035 WITH ITS LOCAL OFFICE AT NO.590/10, 11, 21, 22, M.S. PALYA RD, BHARATH NAGAR, CHIKKABETTAHALLI, M.S.PALYA, BENGALURU - 560 097 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR R BABA FAKRUDDIN … PETITIONER (BY SRI. A S VISHWAJITH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY VIDHAN SOUDHA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME BANGALORE - 560 001 2. GIRINAGAR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER BENGALURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26991 WP No. 4679 of 2026 HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEVARAJ C.H., GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI G.R. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING NOTICE NO. GNR/PS/CRIME/36/2026 ISSUED BY R2 ON 09/02/2026 AT ANNEXURE-H AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING FRESH MATTERS LIST, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other order or direction quashing notice No.GNR/PS/Crime/36/2026 issued by Respondent No.2 on 09.02.2026 at Annexure-H; b. Award the costs of this writ petition to the Petitioner; and c. Pass any other order deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Both the counsel submit that the above matter is covered by the order dated 04.02.2026 passed in IIFL Finance Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka1. 1 W.P.No.31057/2025 (GM-Police) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26991 WP No. 4679 of 2026 3. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has co-operated with the investigation and made available the gold when sought for by the Investigating Officer. 4. He also submits that it ought to be the endevour of the Court to return the seized item to the owner of the property and not retain custody in the Court. 5. In this regard he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujaraj2, more particularly para 3 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference. 3. At the time of the hearing of these matters, learned counsel for the parties submitted that various articles are kept at the police station for a long period by not adhering to the procedure prescribed under Cr.P.C., which creates difficulties for keeping them in safe custody. Finally, the sufferers are-either the State exchequer or the citizens whose articles are kept in such custody. It is submitted that speedier procedure is required to be evolved either by the Court or under the rules for disposal of muddamal articles which are kept at various police stations as most of the police stations are flooded with seized articles. It is, therefore, submitted that directions be given so that burden of the Courts as well as at the police station can, to some extent, be reduced and that there may not be any scope for misappropriation or 2 (2002) 10 SCC 283 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26991 WP No. 4679 of 2026 of replacement of valuable articles by spurious articles. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai2 was rendered in a different context. The context there being that the seized articles are not kept in the custody of the Court so as to flood the Police Station and/or the Court with seized articles and so as to reduce the burden of Courts as well as Police Stations to some extent. In that background, directions were issued to dispose of all applications filed under Section 451 of the erstwhile Cr.P.C as expeditiously as possible. 7. The said decision having been rendered in that context would not be applicable in the present matter inasmuch as the allegations in the present matter are that gold pledged with the Bank had been stolen by a Bank employee and thereafter pledged with the petitioner and during the course of the investigation, the above are sought to be verified. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26991 WP No. 4679 of 2026 8. In the present matter, the petitioner is not the Court or a Police Station. The petitioner is a private party who is in custody of the stolen goods. There cannot be a premium on that aspect of continuing with the custody of allegedly stolen goods with the petitioner. The true owner of the allegedly stolen property cannot be deprived of custody, ownership, possession or use thereof. It would be for the Court seized of the criminal matter to decide as to in whose custody the allegedly stolen items are to be, whether those have to be retained with the Court, to be made available with the Police Station or with any other party on such terms and conditions as the Court may impose that discretion is only available to the Court seized of the matter. In my considered opinion this Court ought not to interdict such discretion. 9. The decision in IIFL Finance Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka1 being applicable to the present matter along with the above observations, the above petition is disposed of in terms of the decision in IIFL Finance Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka1. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26991 WP No. 4679 of 2026 10. All the respective parties would be entitled to agitate their respective rights in the appropriate forum. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39