Karnataka High Court
Mannappuram Finance Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 December, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:53351
WP No. 36196 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 36196 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
1. MANNAPPURAM FINANCE LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT
1956,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT MANAPURAM HOUSE, A.
O. VALAPAD, TRISSUR DISTARICT,
KERALA-680567.
HAVING ONE OF ITS BRANCH AT GARBAVIPALYA RAJ
ARCADE, 7TH MAIN, 1ST FLOOR,
NEAR MANASA NURSING HOME, HONGASANDRA ROAD,
GARBAVIPALAYA BANGALROE DT.,
K.A. PIN 560068,
REP. BY AUTHOERISED SINGANTORY,
AND AREA MANAGER SHANMUGAM A
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed (BY SRI. POORNA PRASAD K R.,ADVOCATE)
by SHWETHA AND:
RAGHAVENDRA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARATMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU 560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BANGALROE CITY,
KARNATAKA-560001.
3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
BEGUR POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY 560068.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:53351
WP No. 36196 of 2024
(BY SRI. MOHAMMAED JAFFAR SHAH., AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
OCNSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO - TO QUASH THE NOTICE
BOTH DATED 30.12.2024 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 94 OF BNSS
ADDRESS TO MANAPPURAM FINANCE LIMITED THE PETITIONER
HEREIN BY THE R-3 FURNISHED AS ANNEXURE-E. AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a) To quash the notice/s both dated 30.12.2024 issued
under section 94 of BNSS addressed to Manappuram
Finance Limited, the Petitioner herein, by the
Respondent No.3, furnished as Annexure-E.
b) Issue direction writ of mandamus or order or direction
directing the respondent police 3 not to proceed with
the notice date 30.12.2024 and furnished as
Annexure-E.
c) Pass an order thereby directing that during the
pendency of this present petition, the Respondents are
restrained from taking any coercive action against the
petitioner are not to interfere in the day to day
business of the petitioner in its premises office of
Mannapuram Finance Limited, Manappuram Finance
Limited, Garbavipalaya Raj Arcade, 7th Main, 1st Floor,
Near Manasa Nursing Home, Hongasandara Road,
Garbavipalya, Bangalore Dt., K.A.Pin 560068 and or at
other places where the petitioners’ employees are
working.
d) Any grant such other relief or directions as this
Hon’ble Court deems fit the facts and circumstances of
case.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:53351
WP No. 36196 of 2024
2. Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for
respondents No.1 to 3.
3. The order being challenged is a notice issued by
respondent No.3 to make available certain gold articles
said to be in the custody of the Petitioner which are
claimed to have been stolen and pledged with the
petitioner.
4. Sri.Poorna Prasad.K.R., learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that the petitioner would co-
operate with the investigation but would have to retain
the gold which had been pledged with the petitioner
since the petitioner has a right over the same being a
Pledgee/pawnee.
5. He submits that there is a right vested with the
petitioner on account of the pledge of the said gold as
a security and that security cannot be taken away on
the ground that the gold is stolen, the ownership of the
gold would have to be established by the person
claiming it by way of an appropriately instituted civil
suit.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:53351
WP No. 36196 of 2024
6. Having considered the above submission and having
perused the papers, I’am of the considered opinion that
the petitioner being only a pledgee/ pawnee would
have a only right that the pledgers/pawner has in the
said gold and the petitioner cannot claim any right
more than that.
7. During investigation, the Investigating Officer would be
required to ascertain various aspects including the
ownership of the said gold and it is for the Court seized
of the matter to decide as to in whose favour the gold
has to be returned, if an application under Section 454
of the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure and now
Section 500 of the BNSS were to be filed. Of course, at
that time the petitioner can always place its rights and
claims before the said Court for being decided. The true
owner of the gold cannot be deprived of the use of the
gold, merely because the same is pledged with a gold
finance company after being stolen from such true
owner. The Gold Finance Company is vested with a
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:53351
WP No. 36196 of 2024
duty to carry out proper due diligence before accepting
the gold as a pledge for a loan disbursed.
8. There are innumerable matters coming up before this
court where stolen gold is pledged with a gold finance
company. I’am of the considered opinion that this
aspect would have to be examined by the concerned
authorities and proper guidelines have to be formulated
in relation to such pledging of gold, ascertainment of
ownership, identity of the person pledging the gold,
implication of pledging stolen gold, manner of dealing
with such gold when criminal proceedings are taken up
etc., etc.,. Therefore, I request the Law Commission,
Karnataka to look into this matter and formulate
necessary guidelines/rules or the like as deemed fit.
9. In that view of the matter, directing the petitioner to
co-operate with the Investigating Officer and make
available all the details relating to the pledge as also
permit the inspection of the gold, which if required the
Investigation Officer can take receipt of and deposit
with the Court seized of the matter, on coming to the
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:53351
WP No. 36196 of 2024
conclusion that the said gold is stolen, it is made clear
that the police officer cannot retain the gold in his
possession, but would have to deposit the same with
the court seized of the matter. The court seized of the
matter while considering any application for release of
the gold or at the time when the court were to pass an
order of release for any reason whatsoever, would have
to issue notice to the Petitioner and afford an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before ordering
the release. With the above observations, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to forward a copy of this
order to the Chairman, Karnataka Law Commission.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
LDC
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 10