Karnataka High Court
G P Uday vs State By on 7 February, 2022
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
WRIT PETITION No.1382/2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
G P UDAY
S/O LATE PUTTACHARI
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OCC UDAY JEWELLERY WORKS
R/AT HARISCHANDRA PURA
PONNAMPET
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 249. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVI, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE BY
POLICE CIRCLE INSPECTOR
GONIKOPPALU
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. , ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.12.2021
PASSED BY THE HONBLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
PANNAMPET IN CC.NO.38/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-E,
DIRECT HONBLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PONNAMPET TO
RECONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
UNDER SECTION 457 OF CR.P.C.
2
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section
482 of Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of the order dated
09.12.2021 passed by the Civil Judge And JMFC,
Ponnampet in C.C No.38/2021 on the application filed by
the petitioner under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for having
rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release of articles
in his favour.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent State.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner
has filed a complaint before the Gonikoppa Police Station
on 15.12.2018 against accused persons alleging that the
accused persons have demolished the jewelry shop run by
him and destroyed the articles on 25.10.2018. Based
upon the said complaint, a case in Crime No.145/2018 for
the offences punishable under Sections 427, 506, 504, 448
of IPC was registered. During investigation, the police
seized some of the articles under PF No.34/2020. The
petitioner being the owner of these articles filed an
application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of the
same, which came to be rejected by the trial Court.
Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is none other than the defacto complainant,
who has lodged complaint against accused persons and the
petitioner is the owner of the jewellry shop and some of
the articles in the shop such as locker, rolling machine,
grinder machine, etc. are necessary for running his
business in jewelry. It is further contended that the police
seized the said articles on the complaint of the petitioner
under panchaname and the trial Court has dismissed his
application for release of articles to the custody of the
petitioner.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner is the complainant
before the police and on his complaint, some of the articles
(article Nos.1 to 19) kept in the shop were seized under
P.F. No.34/2020 by the police. However, there is no rival
claimant and the petitioner being the owner of the articles,
there is no hurdle for the Court to allow the application and
release the articles to the custody of the petitioner. The
order of the trial Court dismissing the application of the
petitioner filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. is against the
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Another vs. State of
Gujarat reported in 2002 Supp(3) SCR 39, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically stated that it is of
no use to keep the seized articles at the Police Stations for
a long period and directed the Magistrate to pass
appropriate orders for return of the same as early as
possible.
6. In view of the above, the criminal petition is
allowed. The order of rejection dated 09.12.2021
passed by the Civil Judge And JMFC, Ponnampet in C.C
No.38/2021 on the application filed by the petitioner under
Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of articles in his favour is
hereby set aside. The application is allowed.
The respondent/investigation officer is directed to
release the articles to the petitioner, subject to the
following conditions:
i. The petitioner shall execute an Indemnity
Bond for a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs with a
surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of
the respondent-Investigating Officer;
ii. The petitioner shall not change the identity
of the articles until disposal of the main
case.
iii. The petitioner shall not alienate the laptop
without permission of the Court.
Further, the respondent is directed to follow the
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case before releasing the
articles to the custody of the petitioner by taking
photographs and preparing detailed panchanama.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Cs
