[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri P N Srinath vs Criminal Investigation Department ... on 12 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15017
WP No. 26542 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 26542 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI P N SRINATH
S/O LATE NARAYANA IYENGAR,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
R/AT NO.269, 3RD FLOOR,
8TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE,
4TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560079
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT (CID)
Digitally signed by
NAGARAJA B M PALACE ROAD,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF RACE COURSE ROAD,
KARNATAKA GANDHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
POLICE
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU-560061
REPRESENTED BY ITS SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
3. SIRIVAIBHAVA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE
LIMITED
OFFICE AT NO.269, 1ST FLOOR,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15017
WP No. 26542 of 2024
HC-KAR
8TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK,
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560079
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
SMT.V R NAGAVALLI
4. SMT.V R NAGAVALLI
W/O SRI.V R RAJESH,
AGE MAJOR,
R/AT NO.397,
B E M L LAYOUT, 3RD PHASE,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560098
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKARA, AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI. M.K. KEMPEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE R-1 AND 2 TO RELEASE THE SCHEDULE PREMISES AND
HAND OVER THE SAME TO THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
Captioned petition is filed seeking a mandamus to
direct respondents 1 and 2 to release the schedule
premises and hand over the same to the petitioner.
NC: 2026:KHC:15017
HC-KAR
2. Heard the petitioner's counsel and learned AGA
appearing for the State. Perused the records.
3. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner
of the commercial premises bearing No.269, I Floor, 8th
Main, 3rd Stage, 4th Block, Basaveshwara Nagar,
Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the "subject
premises"). It is the specific case of the petitioner that
respondents No.3 and 4 were inducted as tenants in
respect of the said premises under a rental agreement
dated 01.03.2018. Under the said agreement, respondents
No.3 and 4 agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.65,000/-
commencing from 01.03.2018 for a period of eleven
months. The petitioner asserts that the tenancy was
purely contractual and the subject premises continued to
remain under the ownership and control of the petitioner
as the landlord.
4. The grievance of the petitioner arises out of the
action of respondent No.1 - the Investigating Agency in
NC: 2026:KHC:15017
HC-KAR
seizing the subject premises in connection with
proceedings initiated against respondent No.3/Society
under the provisions of the Karnataka Protection of
Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act,
2004 (for short, "the Act, 2004"). According to the
petitioner, the premises in question had merely been
leased out to respondents No.3 and 4 and the petitioner
has no manner of involvement with the activities of the
said Society. It is contended that despite the petitioner
being the undisputed owner of the premises, the
Investigating Agency proceeded to seize the premises
without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner. The
petitioner, who claims to be aged about 82 years, submits
that he is being compelled to run from pillar to post in
order to secure restoration of possession of his property
and therefore has approached this Court invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
NC: 2026:KHC:15017
HC-KAR
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and having perused the material on record, this
Court finds that Section 3 of the Act, 2004 has a direct
bearing on the controversy involved in the present
petition. Section 3 of the Act, 2004 empowers the State
Government to attach the money or property of a financial
establishment where the Government has reason to
believe that such establishment is acting in a manner
detrimental to the interests of depositors with an intention
to defraud them. If the Government is satisfied that the
financial establishment is not likely to return the deposits
or render the services assured to the depositors, it may, in
order to protect the interests of such depositors, and after
recording reasons in writing, issue an order published in
the Official Gazette attaching the money or property
believed to have been acquired by such financial
establishment either in its own name or in the name of
any other person.
NC: 2026:KHC:15017
HC-KAR
6. In the present case, respondent No.1 - the
Investigating Agency appears to have proceeded to seize
the subject premises pursuant to the directions issued by
the competent authority under the Act, 2004 in connection
with the proceedings initiated against respondent
No.3/Society. The petitioner would contend that the
subject premises could not have been brought within the
purview of such proceedings since the property is
admittedly owned by the petitioner and was only leased to
respondents No.3 and 4. However, the seizure effected by
the Investigating Agency is evidently part of the larger
proceedings initiated under the statutory framework of the
Act, 2004.
7. Though the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition,
has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been
left remediless and therefore has been constrained to
approach this Court, this Court is of the considered view
that such contention is misconceived and runs contrary to
NC: 2026:KHC:15017
HC-KAR
the scheme of the Act, 2004. Section 12 of the Act, 2004
confers jurisdiction on the Special Court constituted under
the Act to adjudicate all questions relating to the
attachment of properties. More particularly, Sub-section
(3) of Section 12 explicitly provides that any person
claiming an interest in the property attached, or any
portion thereof, may make an application before the
Special Court seeking appropriate relief. Such an
application can be filed at any time before an order is
passed under Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Act,
2004. Therefore, the statutory scheme itself provides a
specific remedy to any person claiming an independent
right, title or interest in the property that has been
attached or seized.
8. In view of the aforesaid statutory mechanism,
the petitioner cannot seek a direction from this Court for
release of the subject premises by invoking writ
jurisdiction. Once proceedings are initiated under the
provisions of the Act, 2004 and the property is seized in
NC: 2026:KHC:15017
HC-KAR
connection with such proceedings, neither respondent
No.1 - the Investigating Agency nor respondent No.2 -
before whom the crime is registered has the authority to
independently release the property. The proper course
available to the petitioner is to approach the Special Court
by invoking the remedy provided under Sub-section (3) of
Section 12 of the Act, 2004 and establish his claim in
respect of the subject premises.
Reserving liberty to petitioner to approach the
Special Court, the captioned petition stands disposed of.
All contentions are kept open.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
ALB
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8
