Writ Petition No. 1549 of 2025 · The High Court · 2025

Order

(ORAL) Mr. B. Vikram, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by the comnon order dated 17.12.2024 o[ this Court in W.P. No.37182 of 2021 and batch and the same is not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

2. Therefore, recording aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, following the common order dated

77.72.2024 of this Court in W.P. No.37182 of 2027 and batch, in terms thereof, this writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission The said corrunon order shall be made part of the record and a copy of the same shall be annexed to this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applicahons, if any, pending in this writ petition shall sband closed. //TRUE COPY// 'T.i'J-'l"Iti[EE SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to Sri B Vikram' Advocate [OPUCI 2 Two CCs to GP for Home' High Court for the HYderabad [OUTI State of Telangana, at I 3, Two CD CoPies TJ Ua f:1, Annexe a photo stat copy of common order in W'P'No'37182 ol 2o21 and HIGH COURT DATED:21 10112025 ORDER WP.No.1549 of 2025 H: ST4 1 r4: k q 12 luri Z0Z5 z a t D53 /-.-C trr.,o * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AT TI{E STAGE ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS G .d'L W^^" 6pt"' THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.37182 of 2021: 41685 and 42682 of 1 1a f 2023 and 83 4LA 67 7481,8346, L3233. 16()6().2L2O6,23253 and 25a44 of 2()24 COMMON ORDERT Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions are similar, this batch of writ petitions is disposed of by this common order. The facts in leading case, being, WPNo.37182 of 2021, are set out for the sake of convenience and disposal of this batch of writ petitions. WP.No.37 a2 of 2O2L 2. Notice dated 21.12.2021 issued to the petitioner- M/s, Manappuram Finance Limited, under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to return the alleged stolen property deposited in the name of Bantu Jayaraju, for further investigation is challenged in this writ petition.

3. The case of the petitioner is that it is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and registered as a Non-Banklng Finance Company with the Reserve Bank of India. The petitioner company is carrying on its business activities as per the Rules, Regulations and Guidelines issued by the RBI from time to time. The petitioner is primarily in the business of facilitation of loans against the security of gold ornaments to its customers. The gold loans are given on application and after due process of verification 2 of identity and valuation of the security. Pledges are :ypically used in securing loans, pawning property for imm:diate cash, by guaranteeing that contract, on failure to repay .he loan, the bank has every legal right to dispose the gold to rec,)ver the dues as per the terms of the contract of loan.

4. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 is visrring the office of the petitioner's branches, frequently calling the cfficers of the petitioner company to the Police Station under the f retext of the crimes allegedly committed by one of the custo'ners oF the petitioner i.e. respondent No.4. The respondent Nc.3 had been interfering with the day-to-day buslness of ti e petitioner indiscriminately. The petitioner is no way related to the FIR registered or the offences said to have been comnritted by the accused therein. The respondents without applying r'lind, in utter violation of the rights of the petitioner and violation of the principles of natural justice, have issued the .impugned rotice dated

21.72.202t.

5. It is submitted that the alleged de facto ( omplainants. who have lodged complaints with the respo tdent No.3, are strangers to the petitioner company and the petitic ner company did not enter in to any transactions with them at any l)oint of time. The respondent No.4 opened the customer ID No.214t,0007013371, J and transacting with the petitioner company on account basis. The respondent No.4 had opened accounts on various dates with the petitioner company. The petitioner company, being the NBFC, is following the norms of the RBI. The records maintained by the petitioner also revealed that the said pledges were accepted after the compliance of the Know.your Customer (KyC) norms and the verification of the relevant documents, as per RBI rules. The respondent No.4, towards the KyC norms, submitted his voter,s identity card issued by Election Commission of India, Ration Card, Driving License and employee identity card issued by Hindustan Shipyard.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner company had been stricuy adhering to the guidelines of the RBI for ',Non-Banking Financial (Deposit Accepting or Holding) Companies prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions,2007" and more particularly, Rule 17(A) to Rule 17(D), which relate to loans against security of single product - gold jewellery and safety and security measures to be followed by Non-Banking Financial Companies lending against collateral of gold jewellery.

7. It is submitted that the petitioner brought to the notice of the police about the facts and the transactions of the loan account by submitting all the copies of the documents. Despite the same, 4 the police started harassing the officers of the petiti( ner company for surrender of the movable gold articles, which are I nder security as pledge and insisting the petitioner company to bring the gold articles, knowing fully well about the loan account. Tht action of the respondents in issuing impugned order dated 21.12.2021 is clear abuse of process of law and is an arm twisting m|thod. It was clearly stated in the impugned order dated 21.]-2.2021 that the respondent No.4 is alleged to have been involved in tl- e said crimes and melted the gold and remade the gold orname'rts and then pledged the same with the petitioner company.

8. It is submitted that the petitioner company ;ubmitted all documents to the police investigation purpose and (,xtending full cooperation for investigation. The de facto complainant and the accused have joined hands in collusion and trying to mudsling the petitioner for extortion and illegal gains. The allege(l stolen gold ornaments are not in the custody of -the petitioner company. The petitioner company has extended loan to the rest)ondent No.4 since luly 2O2l to October 2O2l on various dates for security and on failure of repayment by its custome[ the petitioner :ompany has every right to auction the security by following the d le procedure prescribed under the Non-Banking Financial (Deposit Accepting or Holding) Companies Prudential Norms (Reserve Banl. ) Directions,

2007. 5

9. The respondent No.3, in his counter affidavit, stated the respondent No.4 was involved as A1 in the following crimes i. Cr.No.249/2O21 U/s. 356, 379 IPC of Thurur Police Station, Mahabubabad District. The case rs pending trial vide CC.No.263/2O22 on the file oF the Hon'ble ludicial Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur, Mahabubabad District. n. q.No.47 /2027 U/s. 394 IPC of Nellukunduru Police Station, Mahabubabad District- The case is pendrng trial vide CC.N}.257/7022 on the flle of the Hon'ble ludicial Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur, Mahabubabad District. iii. Cr.No.6412027 U/s.356,379 IPC of Nellikuduru Police Station, Mahabubabad District. The case rs pending trial vide CC.No.38/2022 on the file of the Hon'ble ludicial Magistrate of First Class, Thorrut Mahabubabad District. Ct.No.87 /2021 U/s. 356, 380 IPC of Nellikoduru Police Station, Mahabubabad District. The case is pending trial vide CC.No.24O/2022 on the file of the Hon'ble ludicial Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur, Mahabubabad District. Cr.No.33/2021 U/s. 379 IPC of Peddavangara Police Station, Mahabubabad District. The case is pending trial vide CC.No.2l6/2O22 on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thorrut Mahabubabad District. Cr.No.63/2021 U/s. 356, 379 IPC of Dantharapally Police Station, Mahabubabad Drstrict. The case is pending trial vide CC.No.254l2O22 on the file of the 6 Hon'ble Judicial Maqistrate of First Class, Thorrur, Mahabubabad District. vii. Cr.No.125l2O21 U/s.356,379 IPC of Dornalral Police Station, t4ahabubabad District. The case is pending trial vide CC.No.160/2022 on the file of th€ Hon'ble ludicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad District.

10. It is submitted that in view of the above, tlre respondent No.3 issued notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to the pe-itioner stating that A1 mortgaged the gold ornaments with the petitioner company and requested the petitioner company to return the stolen property for the purpose of investigation. Except issuing rotice to the petitioner company/ the respondent No.3, neitl er harassed, threatened, interfered with the life, liberty and bL,siness of the petitioner company nor has taken any coercive steps. The allegation that the respondent No.3 visited the petitioner's cornpany branch office at Khammam and harassed the employees of the petitioner company is incorrect and baseless.

11. Mr. B. Ramesh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Gopala Rao Amancharla, learned counsel for the petitione[ submitted that the petitioner company undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and trial in all the criminal cases wherever notice under Section 91 Cr.PC. is issued to them for production of pledged gold ornaments. The petitioner company is doing business 7 as per RBI guidelines under the Non-Banking Financial (Deposit Accepting or Holding) Companies Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directrons, 2007. The interference by the respondent-police is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 1a, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. L2. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the order passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dated 2-l .O9.2023 in WP(MD).No.17697 of 2023 and WMP(MD).No.14785 of 2023 and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka dated 19.08.2024 in WP.No.11102 of 2024 and submitted that all the gold ornaments will be produced by the petitioner company as and when the trial Court and police direct them to produce. The petitioner company may be permitted to keep the custody of the gold ornaments until disposal of the criminal cases.

13. Mr. Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable. The police in exercise of their power under Section 91 Cr.P.C. issued notice to the petitioner to produce the stolen gold ornaments. There is no allegation by the petitioner that the police do not have power to issue such notice. Pending investigation and trial, it is premature for the petitioner to contend that the gold ornaments pledged with them do not have any connection with the complaint or the accused 8 persons. If any orders are passed by this Court it would cause impediment to the investigation and trial and it w ll become a precedent. L4. Learned Government Pleader for Home relied )n the order passed by the l-ligh Court of Madhyd Pradesh at Jabalpur in WP.No.22930 of 2O22 dated 15.03.2023 and order p,rssed by this Court in WPNo.34022 of 2022 dated 13.08.2022.

15. Heard Mr. B. Ramesh, learned senior counsel ,rppearing for Mr. V. Gopala Rao Amancharla, Mr. J. Prabhakar, l€ arned senior counsel appearing for Ms. Kanumuri Kalyani, Ivl r. M. Sai Chandra Haas, Mr. P. Sai Santhosh, Mr. Zubair Ahmed and 14 r. B. Vikram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mahesh laje, learned Government Pleader for Home.

16. Incidentally, the petitioner-M/s. 14anappuram Fir ance Limited has filed several writ petitions before the. High Court of Karnataka challenging notice(s) issued under Section 91 Cr.P.C. The learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissed ,vrit petitions viz. WP.No.104593 of 2024 and batch by common order dated

27.O9.2024. The learned Judge relied on several de< isions of the of sei,:ure of the Supreme Court dealing with the Investigation Officer under Section to2 Cr. P.C. (Section 106 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023). The t ower of the 9 Investigation Officer under Section 91 Cr.p.C and the relevancy of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and other provisions of Cr.p.C were also discussed in detail by the learned Judge. Further, the remedy available to the parties (though not accused) under Sections 451 to 459 Cr.P.C. was also dealt with. The following observations of the learned Judge in the said judgment, which will be useful for the purpose of this batch oF writ petitions, are extracted below: "19. Having considered the material on record, it is very clear that petitioners are the Finance institutions and they have advanced the Ioan amount pledging the gold ornaments in all the cases and their contention is that they are the bonafide receivers and hence, there cannot be any recovery and they are ready to obey the conditions that may be imposed. It is also the contention that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted the relref as sought in the similar circumstances and hence, this Court has to grant the relief.

27. ... Having considered the said proviso, it is clear that the domain of the Investigating Officer to seize any article upon property suspected to have been stolen and in the case on hand also committed robbery and stolen and pledged with the petitioner and the same is not in dispute and also in connection with the crime and the investigation is on and it is the domain oF the Investigating Officer to seize the same and report to the superior if he is a subordinate oFficer and also report the seizure to the Magistrate havrng jurisdiction to dispose of the same and rt is subject to speedy and natural decay. Hence, it is clear that powers are vested with the Investigating Officer to seize the same. This Court would also like to rely upon Section 59 of Cr.P.C. and it is to be noted that that no person who has l0 been arrested by a police officer shall be discharged excel)t on his own bond, or on bail, or under the special order of a Magistrate. Hence, it is clear that powers are vested witr the Investigating Officer and no courts shall also interfere witl the domain of the Investigating Officer' 28. This Court would also like to rely upon Section 27( f the Indian Evidence Act which deals with the information rec eived from the accused has to be proved which reads as follows 27. How much of information received from accused may be proved Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as disc( vered inconsequence of information received from a person at cused a police-t fficer, of any offence, in the custodY of it amounts to a so much of such information, whether the fact brcrebY confession or not, as relates distinctly to discovered, maY be Proved ' 29. Having read Section 27 of the Evidence Act' it is ver/ clear that when any fact rs deposed to as discovered inconse(luence of information received from a person accused of any o'fence' in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such inforrlatlon' whether it amounts to a confession or not' as relates di;tinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved and in order to prove the same, the Court has to take note of the discovery of fact and also to take note of the voluntary statement nrade by the accused and the same is not violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the Court has to take Ilote of evidentiary value of the statement made by the accused and recovery and discovery of the fact The Fact as understood in the Evidence Act includes physical as well as psychologlcal fact or mental condition and it leads to discovery of evidrlnce to hear the accused had given the II stolen article is also a discovery of fact and it is the responsibility of the Investigating Officer to state in evidence about authorship of concealment/sale of material object if done by accused and point out jewellary shop who purchased gold and the said conduct rs admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act as held in the judgment of Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala [2009 CRl.L.] 1681.

30. This Court would like to reply upon the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others ys. State of Karnataka l(2O24) 8 SCC 1491, wherein the Apex Court invoking Section 27 read with Section 60 of the Evidence Act held that, recovery at instance of accused, there must be compliance of necessary requirements on part of the Investigating Officer. For invoking' Section 27, not only the statement under Section 27 must be recorded in presence of two independent witnesses, but recovery based on such statement should also be made in presence of two independent witnesses. Thereafter, such statement being basically a memorandum of confession of the accused recorded during interrogation, confessional part of such statement is inadmissible and only the Part which distinctly leads to discovery of fact is admissible in evidence. Thus, while proving such statement before the Trial Court, the Investigating Officet held, must narrate what the accused stated to him. Held, the Investigating Officer essentially testifies about the conversation held between himself and the accused which taken down into writing leading to the discovery of incrimrnating facts. Under Section 60 of the Evidence Act, oral evidence, held, must be direct and no secondary/hearsay evidence, held, can be given in case of oral evidence, except for the circumstances enumerated in the section itself. t2

35. Hence, it is clear that it rs the duty of the petitron -.rs who run financial institutions also should not encourage th€' thief to pledge repeatedly and it is their duty to enquire into th( matter and should not be hand in glove with the accused anc havrng responsibility to cooperate with the Investigatrng Of icer for investigation and assist [or recovery at the instancc of the accused.

38. In the case on hand, it has to be noted the Fact is discovered at the rnstance of the accused and m,rde the voluntary statement that they pledged all the articles ,vith the petitioners and the Investigatrng Offrcer ought to have Invoked Section 102 of Cr.PC. to seize the same and report the ,;ame to his superior officers if he is subordinate and as per lhe new insertion of proviso, the Investigating Officer has to re )ort the same to the concerned jurisdrctional Magistrate but inr tead of invoking Section 102 oF Cr.PC., the Investigatrng Off:er has committed an error in issuing notice invokrng section 91 of Cr.P.C. and Section 94 of BNSS.

40. This Court would also like to rely upon the judgmert of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtta vs. Tapas D Neogil l(7999) 7 SC 6851 with regard to scope of Sectron 102 and police powers to seize the property. lt held in parailraph 4 that a plain reading of subsection (1) of Sectiori 102 ir,dicates that the Police Officer has the power to seize any troperty which may be found under circumstances creating susFicion of the commission of any offence. The legislature having Used the expression "any property. and "any offence" have m,rde the applicability of the provisions wide enough to cover ( ffences created under any Act. But the two preconditi. ns for applicability of Section 102(1) are that it must be 'p operty' l3 and secondry, in respect of the said property there must have suspicion of commission of any offence. 42' Having read these judgments oF the Hon,bre Apex court, it is very clear that it is essl se zed under sect on rozrrilll:::ilT: ::::::,:::i:::,:; the commission oi offence atso when rhe accused r".::r:';'"t::'" j;j[:::" ;: T:; have made voluntary statement that stolen articles were pledged with the petitioners, there is a clear, direct and close link with the commission oF ofFence in question. Under such circumstances, the Investigating Officer has to invoke Section 102(1) and new Section 106 to seize the property when the direct rink between ,n" a,(') property and the alleged offences are committed a-"nted instead of invoking the said provisions, invoked Section gld have i nvo ked s*t.n r oz rr r u1 J::l, : ":i,::"ilil] : : ri:,J" 44. Having considered the it is crear that ir any ,,f;il']::: :1'"".:;:j":ffi: instance of the accused, then even ttre victim ua *"U u, ,nu person.deprived o[ the possession can seek the interim custody during the pendency of th tut" under section 451 of cr.p.c. and section 452 is crear,n" at aFter the disposar of the case the court can take a decision return the seized articres in the crime connected and so ato 4s3- is very ctear with regard to iF any conviction :'-t"":':: "j;:, t,:?; p ro pe rry, eve n co u rr .-,, J'" : money to the bonafide lose ot tn" value oF the articles which direcry connected to the ..,t uno so also section 457 is also very clear that procedure n-u to o" adopted iF no one claims the possession, then the a,ut can issued proclamation and dispose oF the same. *n.,o'- conte n ri on oF the peri tio ne J.'.:'i, :: il"i'i. i"il;"i. JiiI ::" :j iil:lT ;": t4 . Officer has to be prevented in seizing of the propr)rty and taking any coercive action cannot be granted as souglrt by the petitioners. Though the Coordinate Benches have granted such relief and those orders are not in compliance of Sectio 1 102(1) as well as Section 27 of the Evidence Act as wel as the procedure for releasing of the property which was seizild under Sections 451 to 459 of Cr.PC. It has to be noted thlt under Section 27 the property has to be seized at the instan:e of the accused when he discloses the fact and when th,)re is a recovery and discovery oF the particular fact and thirg when there is incriminating evidence available against the accused who indulged in stealing of the property belongs to tl e vrctim and the same has to be recovered at the instancr) of the accused and the same amounts to an incriminating lvidence against the accused ... Hence, I do not find any merit in the petitions to pass such preventive order agairst the Investigating Officer and the same is the domair of the Investigating Officer which is nothing but interfering with the powers vested with the Investigating Officer under Section 102 and 59 of Cr.P.C., the Court cannot prevent by pass ng such orders aga inst lnvestigating Officer." , Discussion and Analysis: f7. Criminal law is set into motion witi'r the regist'ation of FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The police (Investigation Officer) is vested with several powers under Cr.P.C. such a;: recording statement (under Section 161 Cr.P.C.); search (Sectior 93 Cr.P.C.); arrest (Section 41 Cr.PC.); summoning witnesses (Section 160 Cr.P.C.); issuing notice to witnesses (Section 91 Cr.t,.C.); seizing documents (Section 102 Cr.P.C.). It would be difficult for any Court to lay down clear cut guidelines to be followed by the Investigation 15 Officer in matters relating to seizure of gold ornaments or valuable

18. In the instant case, the petitio n er-com pan ies have extended loanfacilitytotheirCustomersbytakingpledgeofgoldornaments. In many of the above cases, there are allegations of theft' According to the prosecution, the persons, some of whom are accused, have committed theft of gold ornaments and thereby pledged the ornaments with the petitioner entities' In some cases' there is an allegation that the persons, who have pledged ornaments, are in wrongful possession of gold ornaments pledged such ornaments for obtaininq loans' The details of the FIRS go ld are as under: FIR No FIR CONTENTS wP /37 t82/2027 wP/416A612022 wP/6180/2023 wP/ 426A212022 wPl236Al2023 18.03.20 21 4A212022 05.7r.2022 72.O2.2023 15212022 12.fi.2022 27.O3.2022 96812O2t 20.09.202t a4o/202t 26.Oa.2021 59612022 05.11.2022 t7 .09.2022 Complaint registered U/s 394 IPC in Nellikudur PS, Mahabubabad Complaint registered U/s 380 in Nacharam PS. Rachakonda Complaint registered Uls 454 an in Khammam 2 Town PS lPc Complaint registered U/s 394 tlw IPC. Complarnt registered Uls 356, 31s IPC. Complaint registered Uls 394,307 w 34 IPC. d 380 34 Complaint registered U/s 392lPC. All four complaints have been filed in Gummadidala PS, Sangareddy Complaint registered U/s 451,38O lP in Hanamkonda PS, Warangal c Complarnt registered U/s 457, 380 IPC in Kakati a Universi Cam us PS l6 wP/3rc18/2023 wP/83/2024 wP/24t4/2024 wP/5675/2024 wP/744U2024 wP/4346/2024 wP/t3233/2024 wP/t6o6o/2024 wP/2t2O6/2024 wP/232s3/2024 wP/25844/2024 tao/2023 08.08.2023 20.o9.2023 02.1o.2023 Wa ra nga I Complaint registered U/: 387, 506 tlw 34 IPC in Film Nagar PS, Hyderabad Complaint registered U/: 457, 380 IPC in Osmania University Cr:y PS Complaint registered U/: 457, 3AO IPC in Sangareddy Rural PS to]7/2023 18.10.2023 Complaint registered U/! 457, 380 IPC in Kushaiguda PS 27.Lt.2023 2t9/2023 20.t2.2023 20.02.2024 t9t/2023 1 5.08.20 23 06.o3.2024 28.O4,2024 to33/2023 04.70.2023 25r/2024 30.07.2024 r2.o7 .2024 aa7/2024 o4-09-2024 Complaint registered wit 1 Osmania University City PS U/s 4: 7, 380 IPC Complaint registered U/: 379 IPC in Kondapur PS Complaint registered U/: 392 IPC in Uppal PS Complaint registered U/: 454,3AO IPC in Mathkal PS, Narayanp rl Complaint registered U/: 420,506 IPC r/w 120 (B) IPC filed wit r CCS Complaint registered U/: 380 IPC jn KPHB Colony PS Complaint registered U/: 381 IPC in Ranjendranagar PS Complaint registered U/: 306 BNS with Bandlaguda PS Complaint registered U/: 408,420 IPC in Narayanguda PS Complaint resgistered Ur s 305 BNS in Ra end ra na ar PS be abad

19. The case of the petitio ner-com pa nies is that th(iy are strictly following the guidelines and norms issued by the RtlI and other relevant laws in pledging gold and that it would be diff cult for them to recover loans if gold ornaments, which have beer received by them as security, is taken over/seized by the Investiqation Officer. It is their contention that trial in usual course takes long 1i." und 17 as huge quantity of gold is involved, since the petitioners have better Facilities like safety lockers. they would undertake to keep the pledged gold in their safe custody and will not be alienated till conclusion of trial and will be produced before the trial Court as and when called upon. In that regard reliance is placed on Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dated 27.O9.2O23 in WP(MD).No.17697 of 2023 and WMP(MD).No.14785 of 2O23 and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka dated 19.08.2024 in WP.No.11102 of 2024. The Madurai Bench held as under: "14. As the respondent police are not intending to seize the jewels, this petition is disposed of with the following d irections: -

1. The petitioner company is directed to keep all the gold jewels as described in the petition intact with the petitioner company itself in safe custody; 2- The petitioner company shall not sell or auctlon all the gold jewels without permission of the CourU 3. The petitioner company shall produce these gold jewels as and when directed by the respondents police during the course of investigation if at all the police intend to conduct Test Identification Parade or for any other similar purPose; 4. The petitioner company shall also produce the gold jewels before the Court in case the trial Court directs the petitioner company to produce them during the course of trial; 5. The trial Court is directed not to consider application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. and is directed to pass appropriate orders at the time of disposal of the main case in Crime No.27 of 2023 in respect of disposal of the property under Section 452 of Ct.P.C. If at all any application is filed under Section 451 of Cr.PC., the trial Court shall issue l8 notice to the petitioner company beFore consider ing the Same; 6. In case, if the petttioner company or the resplndents police aggrieved by the orders passed under Sectior 452 of Cr.PC. by the learned Magtstrate, then the aggriev('d party can approach the appropnate Court to challenge th I same; 7. The gold jewels should be photographed at the co;t of the petitioner company and a list is to be prepared )nd the same is to be signed by the petitioner company."

20. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in WP.No.2 2930 of 2O22 dated 15.03.2023 held as under: "8. Question before Court is whether petitioner ( ompany exercising its rights under agreement with accu;ed can retain gold jewellery despite notice of Investigatrnt Officer under Sectron 102 of the Cr.PC.? Section 24 of the Contract Act lays down as undet :- "24. Agreements void, if considerations and objects unlawful in part.- If any part of a ',ingle consideration For one or more objects, or any ole or any part of any one of several considerations tor a single oblect, is unlawful, the agreerhent is void.'

9. No right is created in favour of petitioner corrpany to retain the jewellery as said jewellery rs subject rr atter of crime and agreement between petitioner comp. ny and accused which has been secured on basis of fr;rud and m isrepresentation, is void under Section 24 of the :ontract Act, therefore, petitioner in aid of said agreemenl cannot refuse to obey the notice given by concerned polic('station under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. Further petitioner (ompany has not diligently taken care for proper verification of gold jewellery. Documents of ownership of gold was not checked l9 by petitioner company and only on basis of declaration, gold loan was given This Court in Wp.No.34022 of 2022 dated 30.08.2022 held as under: "11. According to the conFesslonal statement oF the accused, the crime property is with the petitioner company. In these circumstances, under Section 91 Cr.pC, the respondent police have every authority and jurisdiction to issue such a notice. When once the police have got jurisdiction, this court is not concerned with the other issues raised by the petitioner and further coming to the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition No.4351 of ZOZ2, it is an interim order wherein the order passed by the XXXIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad is stayed. What is the order passed by that court and how is it relevant to the facts of the case. No material is placed before this court. Hence, this court is not in a position to consider the said order and apply the same to the facts and circumstances of this case.,, 27. It is needless to state that the Investigation Officer has prerogative to seize the gold ornaments for the purpose oF investigation, whenever there is " arrpiaion regarding ownership of gold and information is received by him during investigation that the persons, who are alleged of theft or any other offences, have wrongfully gained custody of the gold and deposited the same with the petitioner/fina ncia I institutions. It would not be possible for this court to issue generar directions to the porice officers to foflow a particular pattern or line of investigation in matters relating to theft 20 of gord ornaments. However, in individuar (ases where the jurisdiction of the Investigation Officer is questiorred and a case is made out where there is no link established bet f/een the alleged offences and gord ornaments predged with the fin; nciar institutions, the High court may interfere depending on the merits and fact situation. Without examining the cases on individ Jal merit, if any interim orders of general nature are passed by this Court, bypassing the provisions of Cr.p.C., even when eftective alternate remedy under Cr.p.C. (Section 457/457 cr.pc.) is avairabre, it wi not only lead to confusion but also unwanted liti,lation, which is avoidable.

22. It is not onry that the petitioner-com pan ies have arternate remedy beFore the trial Courts under Sections 451 irnd 457 Cr.p.C., but further remedy is also available before the Ses::ions Court and High Court under Section 397 or Section 4g2 Cr.p.l., as the case be. It is not the case of the petitioner-com pa n ies that the officers have acted without any jurisdiction. the petitioners not made out any case warranting exercise of jurisdiction of police this Court in Writ jurisdiction

23. It needs to be noted that the trial Court can p,ass orders for release of gold ornaments by considering the difficu ty that would be faced by the petitio ner-com pan ies. who have ent loans on 2t pledge of gold. The Karnataka High Court in WP.No.104593 of 2024 and batch daled 27.o9.2024 has taken a view that the Investigation Officer ought to have issued notice under Section 102 Cr.P.C. and not under Section 91 Cr.PC. The learned Judge formed such an opinion based on several judgments of the Supreme Court as discussed above. Manappuram Finance Limited, who is the petitioner herein, is also the petitioner therein and the facts are also similar and this Court concurs with the judgment of the Karnatakd High Court in WP.No.104593 of 2024 and batch order dated 27.O9.2024.

24. Howevet despite this Court holding that the Investigation Officer has power under Section 102 Cr.P.C. and not under Section 91 Cr.P.C., this Court is no inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners. The respondent police/Investig ation Officers are given liberty to seize gold articles from the petitioners by complying with the procedure under Section 102 Cr.P.C. The petitioners are also at liberty to file applications under Section 45U457 Cr.P.C. for release of seized gold articles, which shall be decided by the Magistrate concerned in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein. 22 The writ petitions are dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. December 17 , 2024 llqte: LR copy to be marked (B/o) DSK B. VIJAYSEI\ REDDY, J