Karnataka High Court
Manappuram Finance Ltd vs Harish Kumar. J on 21 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:47255-DB
CCC No. 892 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. 892 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 No. 61/1,
FIRST FLOOR, NAGARAJ BUILDING,
ABOVE PJMC BANK,
SIRA ROAD, TUMKUR,
KARNATAKA-572 106,
Digitally signed
by VALLI REP. BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MARIMUTHU AND AREA HEAD,
Location: High MR. ASHOK. E.
Court of ...COMPLAINANT
Karnataka
(BY SRI ANISH JOSE ANTONY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HARISH KUMAR. J.,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
WORKING AS CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VIDYARANYAPURA POLICE STATION,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA-560 097.
...ACCUSED
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:47255-DB
CCC No. 892 of 2024
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...PROFORMA RESPONDENT
(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
W.P.No.7051/2024 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:47255-DB
2. This contempt petition alleges breach of directions passed
in Writ Petition No.7051 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,
Vidyaranyapura Police Station, Bengaluru. It is submitted that
the complaint of chain snatching was registered as Crime No.95
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.38 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 30.03.2024. It is further stated in
the affidavit that the complainant has filed an application under
NC: 2024:KHC:47255-DB
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 learned Magistrate,
it cannot be said that the respondents have committed any
contempt.
NC: 2024:KHC:47255-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
