SRI P N SRINATH v. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT (CID)

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. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15017 WP No. 26542 of 2024 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 - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15017 WP No. 26542 of 2024 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 Constitution of India. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15017 WP No. 26542 of 2024 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. - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15017 WP No. 26542 of 2024 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 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 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 - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:15017 WP No. 26542 of 2024 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 - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:15017 WP No. 26542 of 2024 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