Karnataka High Court
Manappuram Finance Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 21 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:47256-DB
CCC No. 890 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
CCC No. 890 OF 2024 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
MANAPURAM HOUSE,
A. O.VALAPAD, TRISSUR DISTRICT,
KERALA - 680567.
HAVING ONE OF ITS BRANCH AT,
RING ROAD, NEAR RAJ KUMAR,
SAMADHI, NANDINI LAYOUT,
REP. BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
AND AREA HEAD
Digitally signed
by VALLI MR. ASHOK E.
MARIMUTHU ...COMPLAINANT
Location: High (BY SRI ANISH JOSE ANTONY, ADVOCATE)
Court of
Karnataka AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560001.
...PROFORMA RESPONDENT
2. BYRAPPA K. S.,
AGED MAJOR,
WORKING AS POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:47256-DB
CCC No. 890 of 2024
SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION,
SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD,
NEAR UTTARAHALLI CIRCLE,
UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 560061.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI PRADEEP C.S., AAG A/W
SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANT PRAYING TO
PASS AN ORDER PUNISHING THE ACCUSED, FOR HAVING
COMMITTED CONTEMPT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP
No.7054/2024 DATED 13.03.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. Anish Jose Antony for the
complainant and learned Additional Advocate General
Mr. C.S. Pradeep along with learned Additional Government
Advocate Smt. Pramodhini Kishan for the respondents.
NC: 2024:KHC:47256-DB
2. This contempt petition alleges breach of directions passed in
Writ Petition No.7054 of 2024 dated 13.03.2024.
3. The following directions were issued by learned Single
Judge,
"..., this writ petition is disposed off directing
the police to restore the seized articles to the
petitioner forthwith; if other articles are needed,
then also the same procedure shall be
followed. If the articles are already produced
before the jurisdictional court, the learned
Magistrate is requested to release the same in
favour of the petitioner subject to the terms
hereinabove mentioned and such other usual
terms."
4. The respondents, on service of notice, have filed
compliance affidavit affirmed by the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru. It is submitted
that the complaint of chain snatching was registered as Crime
No.68 of 2024. The gold articles in question were complained
to be the proceeds of crime. The gold articles seized are
subjected to P.F.No.31 of 2024 before the jurisdictional
Magistrate. It is further stated that the victim filed an
application for release of the articles. The articles were
released by the jurisdictional Magistrate by order dated
20.03.2024. It is further stated in the affidavit that the
NC: 2024:KHC:47256-DB
complainant has filed an application under Sections 451 and
457 of Cr.P.C. for the release of the gold articles and is pending
consideration before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
5. Having considered the submissions of learned advocates
for the parties, it emerges that, the order of learned Single
Judge contains two directions. Firstly, directing the Police to
release the seized articles. Secondly, if the articles are to be
produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the learned
Magistrate is requested to release the same in favour of the
complainant.
5.1 The seized articles are subjected to the jurisdiction of the
learned magistrate. Thus, it is the second direction alone that
can be enforced. In compliance of the said direction, the
complainant has preferred application before the jurisdictional
Magistrate.
6. In the above matter, it cannot be said that the order
under contempt is breached. Undisputedly, the seized articles
having been subjected to the jurisdiction of the learned
Magistrate, it cannot be said that the respondents have
committed any contempt.
NC: 2024:KHC:47256-DB
7. In light of the above, the contempt petition would not
survive for further consideration. Accordingly disposed of.
The application of the complainant pending before the
jurisdictional Magistrate shall be decided on its own merits.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
MV
