[Cites 22, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Manappuram Finance Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11257
WP No. 25109 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 25109 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
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-680 567.
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT
NO.125/128, GROUND FLOOR
CHECKBAZAAR ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560051
DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
SMT. SHAIK KARIMUNNISA
Digitally signed ...PETITIONER
by AL BHAGYA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. ANISH JOSE ANTONY, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER
SHIVAJINAGAR PS
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001.
2. SMT. ATUL JAIN
S/O LATE P.C. JAIN
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:11257
WP No. 25109 of 2024
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
FLAT NO.120, NO.3
SWASTIK SAMRIDDHI APARTMENT
CHICK BAZAR ROAD
SHIVAJINAGAR
BENGALURU CITY-560 051.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS OF ANNX-J ORDER DATED 14.12.2022 IN
CC NO. 54744/2020 PASSED BY THE XXIX ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE AND QUASH THE
SAME TO AN EXTENT OF MAKING THE INTERIM CUSTODY OF
ARTICLES GRANT EARLIER, ABSOLUTE AND FOR FURTHER
DIRECT XXIX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
BANGALORE TO PASS ORDERS UNDER SECTION 452 OF CRPC
IN CC NO. 54744/2020 DATED 14.12.2022 VIDE ANNX-J WITH
REGARD TO THE ARTICLES SEIZED IN PF NO. 09/2020 DE
NOVO AFTER HEARING THE PETITIONERS WITHIN A PERIOD
OF ONE MONTH.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition challenges the order dated
14.12.2022 passed in C.C.No.54744/2020, whereby the
learned Magistrate, after recording the settlement in the
Lok-Adalat, made the interim custody of certain gold
NC: 2026:KHC:11257
HC-KAR
articles (seized in P.F.No.9/2020) absolute in favour of
respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner, a Non-Banking Financial
Company (NBFC) which advanced loans against pledged
gold seeks that the said portion of the order (making
interim custody absolute) be set aside and that the matter
be remitted to the learned Magistrate to hold an enquiry
under Section 452 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
('Cr.P.C' for short) and to pass appropriate orders after
giving notice to all persons claiming interest.
3. The petitioner is an established NBFC with
nationwide presence. The petitioner advanced loan to
Smt. Renuka on 10.02.2020, 05.03.2020 and 09.03.2020
against pledges of gold ornaments. A complaint came to
be registered in Crime No.18/2020 alleging offence under
Section 381 of IPC. On 16.03.2020, the Investigating
Officer issued notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and seized
the gold articles (recorded as P.F.No.9/2020). Interim
NC: 2026:KHC:11257
HC-KAR
custody of the seized articles was given during
investigation and, following settlement before the Lok-
Adalat, the trial Court made the interim custody absolute
in favour of respondent No.2, without hearing the
petitioner. The petitioner contends it is a bona fide pledgee
and has a civil right/claim to possession which was not
adjudicated.
4. The petitioner's counsel reiterating the grounds
has placed reliance on the following judgments:
1) Nevada Properties (P) Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2019) 20 SCC 119;
2) N.Madhavan vs. State of Kerala - (1979) 4 SCC 1;
3) Hiralal Babulal Soni vs. State of Maharashtra - 2025
SCC Online SC 437;
4) Yes Bank vs. State of UP and Others - Criminal Appeal
No.207/2023;
5) Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. vs. The SHO and Others -
Criminal Appeal No.1026/2024;
6) Shimoga District Central Co-operative Bank Limited,
Shimoga vs. Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation,
Bangalore - 2003 SCC Online Kar 831;
NC: 2026:KHC:11257
HC-KAR
7) Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain vs. State of UP - 1964 SCC
Online SC 38;
8) Union Territory of Ladakh vs. Jammu & Kashmir
National Conference - 2023 SCC Online SC 1140;
9) Shabna Abdulla vs. Union of India - 2024 SCC Online
SC 2057;
10) Union of India vs. Dayanand - (2008) 10 SCC 1.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/State has also countered by producing the
following judgments:
1) Muthoot Fincorp Limited Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Udumalpet vs. Inspector of Police and Another - 2020 SCC
Online Mad 4664;
2) Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. vs. Station House Officer - 2022
SCC Online Ker 1539;
3) Manappuram General Finance & Leasing Limited vs.
State of Telangana - 2024 SCC Online TS 1423;
4) Muthoot Finance Ltd., vs. State of Karnataka - 2024
SCC Online Kar 2531.
NC: 2026:KHC:11257
HC-KAR
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the
respondents. The following point would arise for
consideration:
"Whether the learned Magistrate was
justified in making the interim custody of the
seized gold articles absolute in favour of
respondent No.2, without notice to the
petitioner and without holding an enquiry under
Section 452 Cr.P.C. and whether the settlement
before the Lok Adalat could supplant the
statutory process for disposal of seized property
where third-party rights are claimed?"
Finding on the Point for consideration:
7. In the present case on hand,
petitioner/company asserts that it has advanced loan to
Smt. Renuka on 10.02.2020, 05.03.2020 and 09.03.2020
by accepting gold through pledging by following the due
process of law. The petitioner's primary grievance is that
pursuant to complaint lodged which culminated in
NC: 2026:KHC:11257
HC-KAR
registration of crime at the instance of respondent No.2 in
Crime No.18/2020, the Investigating Officer based on
statement given by the accused seized the gold articles
from the petitioner/company on 16.03.2020 in Crime
No.18/2020 and the seized property was assigned with
Property Finding No.9/2020. Petitioner/company therefore
contends that gold mentioned in the seized mahazar, since
it was seized from petitioner's branch, the interim custody
given to the complainant of the seized gold and
consequent order by the local authority making it
absolute, according to the finance company is arbitrary
and prejudicial to petitioner's claim over the seized golden
articles.
8. Sections 451-452 (and 457) Cr.P.C. lay down
the power of criminal courts in respect of custody and
disposal of property produced or seized in connection with
an inquiry or trial. Section 451 deals with custody pending
trial; Section 452 authorizes the Court, at the conclusion
of the inquiry/trial, to pass orders for disposal of the
NC: 2026:KHC:11257
HC-KAR
property (by destruction, confiscation, or delivery to any
person who claims to be entitled); Section 457 empowers
a Magistrate to deal with property seized by a police officer
which is not produced before the Court. The scheme
presumes that disposal at the conclusion of the trial is a
judicial act requiring consideration of claims and, where
necessary, enquiry and opportunity to be heard.
9. Custody/disposal cannot be mechanically
determined by settlement without considering third-party
rights. It is now well settled that, custody or final disposal
of seized property is not a mere corollary of the settlement
on criminal liability; the criminal Court must consider and
determine, in accordance with law, which person is
entitled to possession and this normally requires an
enquiry under Section 452/457 Cr.P.C where third-party
claims are made. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs.
Suryanarayanan & Another1, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court set aside an order which had granted interim
Criminal Appeal No.170 of 2009
NC: 2026:KHC:11257
HC-KAR
custody and remanded the matter to the trial Court to
pass orders in terms of Section 452 Cr.P.C. because no
proper disposal order in terms of Section 452 Cr.P.C was
passed. The Court emphasized that Section 452 Cr.P.C
mandates final disposal by the Court and interim custody
cannot be treated as a substitute for that statutory
process.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that property
should not be detained longer than necessary. The Hon'ble
Apex Court has repeatedly emphasised that seizure and
custody by police/court is to be regulated so as not to
injure legitimate third-party rights and that property
should not be retained longer than necessary; disposal
must be done expeditiously while safeguarding rights of
claimants.
11. Lok-Adalat's play a very limited role, it cannot
determine ownership/merits when third parties are
excluded. Lok-Adalats are statutorily constituted fora for
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11257
HC-KAR
facilitating settlements; they have no adjudicatory
jurisdiction to decide questions of title/ownership or to
decide the merits where such questions are unresolved or
third-party rights are involved. The Hon'ble Apex Court
has emphasised that where a genuine compromise is not
possible or where a determination on merits is required,
the Lok-Adalat cannot assume the role of a court to
adjudicate such disputes and such matters should be
returned to the referring court for adjudication. Thus a
settlement before Lok-Adalat (or its recording) does not
absolve the trial Court from the statutory obligation to
determine, after notice and enquiry, the person entitled to
the seized property. In the present case;
(a) There is an admitted seizure made in course
of investigation and the petitioner asserts a specific
civil right as pledgee in respect of the gold articles.
(b) The Lok-Adalat settlement resulted in
acquittal of the accused, but there is no
contemporaneous adjudication in the trial Court
under Section 452 Cr.P.C regarding who is entitled to
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11257
HC-KAR
possession of the seized articles. The lok-Adalat
proceeded to make interim custody absolute in
favour of respondent No.2 without hearing the
petitioner and without passing an order for disposal
after enquiry in terms of Section 452 Cr.P.C. Such a
course is contrary to the scheme of Sections
451/452/457 of Cr.P.C and the authorities cited
above.
(c) Under Section 452 of Cr.P.C., the Court is
empowered to deliver the property to any person
claiming to be entitled to its possession. The court
has therefore jurisdiction to decide the question of
possession. The section therefore empowers the
court to return articles, whether involved in crime or
not, to the person claiming to be entitled to
possession. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the
court to ensure and ascertain as to who is the person
best entitled for the possession of the golden articles
which were seized from the custody of the
petitioner/finance company.
(d) Sections 452 and 453 of Cr.P.C
contemplates cases where the order with regard to
property is passed on the conclusion of the trial
under Section 453 of Cr.P.C, where property is found
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11257
HC-KAR
to be stolen property. The person entitled to
possession of the same in such case is the person
from whom it was originally stolen. However, in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the
petitioner/finance company is asserting that the
golden articles were pledged in accordance with law
and therefore, the Lok Adalat had no power to make
the interim custody absolute detrimental to the rights
of the petitioner/company.
12. It is trite law that a Lok-Adalat derives its
jurisdiction strictly from the consent of the parties and is
empowered only to record a lawful settlement between
them. A Lok-Adalat does not exercise adjudicatory powers
and cannot decide disputed questions of fact or law, nor
can it pass orders affecting substantive or proprietary
rights of persons who are not parties to the settlement. In
the present case, the order of the Lok-Adalat making the
interim custody of the seized articles absolute travels far
beyond the scope of its statutory authority. The question
of final custody or disposal of seized property squarely
falls within the exclusive domain of the criminal Court
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11257
HC-KAR
under Sections 451 and 452 of the Cr.P.C and requires a
judicial determination after affording an opportunity of
hearing to all persons claiming an interest in the property.
The impugned order, insofar as it makes interim custody
absolute, directly and adversely affects the rights of the
petitioner, who asserts a lawful lien by way of pledge,
despite the petitioner not being a party to the Lok-Adalat
proceedings. Such an order, therefore, suffers from
inherent lack of jurisdiction and warrants interference by
this Court. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be
set aside to the limited extent it makes the interim
custody absolute, leaving it open to the jurisdictional
Magistrate to decide the issue of custody and disposal of
the property in accordance with law.
13. In the present circumstances the impugned
portion of the order (i.e., making interim custody
absolute) must be set aside and the matter must be
remitted to the learned Magistrate to proceed in
accordance with law, in particular to:
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11257
HC-KAR
(i) issue notice to the petitioner and any other
person who claims interest in the seized articles;
(ii) hold an enquiry (if necessary, of a summary
nature) to determine questions of entitlement to
custody / possession;
(iii) having recorded evidence and heard the parties,
pass appropriate orders for disposal of the property
in accordance with Section 452 Cr.P.C (and, where
relevant, Section 457/451), giving reasons; and
(iv) ensure interim measures (if necessary) to
protect the property pending enquiry, e.g., superdari
bond, custodial safeguards, photographic record and
inventory, so as to preserve the property and the
rights of parties. The trial Court must act
expeditiously. The direction to pass an order under
Section 452 of Cr.P.C is the exact remedy indicated
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar
circumstances.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11257
HC-KAR
Accordingly, the point formulated above is answered
in the negative.
14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed in part;
(ii) The impugned order dated 14.12.2022
passed in C.C.No.54744/2020 by the XXIX
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore vide Annexure-J is set aside insofar
as it makes the interim custody of the gold
articles (seized in P.F.No.9/2020) absolute in
favour of respondent No.2;
(iii) The matter is remitted to the learned
Magistrate, who shall, within a period of four
(4) weeks from receipt of the records:
(a) issue notice to the petitioner and to
any other person who claims interest in
the gold articles;
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11257
HC-KAR
(b) hold necessary enquiry/hearings under
Sections 451/452/457 Cr.P.C., as may be
appropriate in the facts of the case; and
(c) after considering the claims and
evidence, pass an order for disposal of the
seized articles in terms of Section 452
Cr.P.C., recording reasons and following
principles of natural justice.
(iv) Pending the aforesaid enquiry, the
learned Magistrate may, if necessary, direct
suitable custodial safeguards for the gold
articles (including bond or other appropriate
mechanism) so as to preserve the property and
the rights of the parties;
(v) Liberty is reserved to the parties to
move the learned Magistrate for interim
directions, and thereafter to approach this
Court for any exceptional relief, if need arises;
(vi) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA/List No.: 1
