Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 821

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Krishnan Narayana – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. Etc. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 3458-3459 of 2026 [@ SLP(Criminal) Nos. 19205-06 of 2025]
Decided On : 27-07-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.p. Parthiban, AOR Ms. Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, Adv. Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv. Mr. S. Geyolin Selvam, Adv. Mr. Alagiri K, Adv. Mr. Shivansh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhishek S, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Ms. Vanshika Singh, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Purushotham, AOR Mr. Honey Singh, Adv. Mr. Pratyaksh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Laxman Tapashi, Adv. Mr. Virendra Mohan, Adv. Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Dwibendu Shekhar Barik, Adv. Mr. Ratan Singh, Adv. Ms. Reena Pandey, AOR Mr. Anand M Sanjay Nuli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Purshottam, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yogendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kamal Pundir, Adv. Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ranbir Singh, Adv. Ms. Manisha, Adv. Ms. Abhilasha Belwal, Adv. Ms. Yashica Rawal, Adv. Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Ms. Devika Khanna, Adv. Mr. Vmz Chambers, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
Released of vehicle seized by Police – Registration is a relevant factor, but it is evidentiary and not conclusive of entitlement to interim possession of seized vehicle.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 451 and 457 [Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS, 2023] – Seizure of vehicle – Grant of interim custody – Court has discretion to determine who is best entitled to possession of property – Use of words ‘possession’ and ‘custody’ emphasize that Court does not adjudicate title but merely undertakes exercise of granting interim possession, with object of preventing decay and diminution in value of subject property – Limited object of these provisions is to ensure that property seized in course of criminal proceedings does not suffer waste, misuse, or deterioration, and that it remains available for production before Court as and when required – Exercise of this power requires Court to make only a prima facie assessment of who is best entitled to possession, having regard to nature of property, circumstances of seizure and material placed before it – It does not comprise adjudication of ownership, which falls generally within exclusive domain of competent civil forum. (Paras 27 and 30)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 451 and 457 [Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS, 2023] – Released of vehicle seized by Police – Grant of interim custody – Appellant's case rests almost entirely on registration certificates standing in name of his company – Registration is a relevant factor, but it is evidentiary and not conclusive of entitlement to interim possession – Vehicles were seized from operational site of respondent company, where they had remained in continued use pursuant to written undertaking executed by appellant himself – Appellant has not offered any explanation for having encashed cheque issued to him in connection with transfer of his shareholding – Whether resignation, Board Resolution, and share transfer were validly executed or were fabricated, is a matter requiring evidence and trial which cannot be resolved at this interim stage – Circumstances favouring respondent company outweigh circumstances in favour of appellant – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court upheld. (Paras 32, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals challenge the common impugned judgment and order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati wherein Crl. Petition no.3712/2025 filed by the appellant herein was dismissed and Crl. Petition No.7896/2025 filed by respondent company was allowed. By said order, interim custody of subject vehicles was granted to respondent company, pending the resolution of the criminal cases between them.
Findings of Court:
Observations made herein are confined to the question of interim custody and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the rival claims of ownership, misappropriation, or the validity of the resignation and share transfer, which shall be independently determined in the pending appropriate proceedings.
Result : Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals challenge the common impugned judgment and order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati wherein Crl. Petition no.3712/2025 filed by the appellant herein was dismissed and Crl. Petition No.7896/2025 filed by M/s Earth Stein Private Limited (hereinafter “the respondent company”) was allowed. By the said order, interim custody of the subject vehicles, namely one Bolero City Pick-up, 3 Excavators and one Ashok Leyland Tipper was granted to the respondent company, pending the resolution of the criminal cases between them.

3. The brief background is that the Appellant is the director of one M/s Pure Minerals involved in quarrying of granite. He was also a director of the respondent company with an 80% shareholding. The subject vehicles were purchased in the name of the company M/s Pure Minerals between 2014 to 2022.

4. It is the case of the appellant that on 31.05.2023, he visited the house of one S.R Kumar, owner of M/s Parakrish Mineral Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, a company from which certain amounts were due to the appellant towards the supply of granite. On this occasion, the respondents S.R Kumar, T. Arivudainambi and G. Thirgunanam intimidated him and got his signatures on blank papers, which were used to forge his resignation from the respondent company on 16.06.2023.

5. Subsequently, on 31.08.2023, the Respondents committed criminal trespass into the granite factory of M/s Pure Minerals and forcefully took away the subject vehicles. An FIR bearing Crime No.353/2023 was registered in this regard on 17.09.2023 on the basis of the complaint filed by the appellant.

6. The Respondent’s version, however, is materially different, alleging that the appellant had misappropriated Rs.1,73,11,894 from the respondent company and utilised the amounts to purchase the subject vehicles in the name of his company M/s Pure Minerals, with himself as the authorised owner. A counter-FIR No.354/2023 came to be lodged in this regard. A chargesheet was filed and the matter is pending before the trial court.

7. On 20.11.2023, the appellant lodged another FIR bearing Crime No.102/2024 regarding the allegations concerning the amounts due from M/s Parakrish Mineral Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and the subsequent acts of intimidation and forgery as described above.

8. Initially, FIR No.353/2023 was referred to as a ‘mistake of fact’ and a closure report was filed on 14.08.2024. However, a subsequent chargesheet came to be filed on 09.02.2025 after the file was re-opened and further investigation was carried out. During the course of this investigation, police seized the subject vehicles from the granite factory of the respondent company on 07.02.2025.

9. As regards Crime No.102/2024, this was also closed as a ‘mistake of fact’, and the protest petition against the same also came to be dismissed, with the said dismissal being upheld by the High Court. An SLP against the same is pending before a coordinate bench of this Court.

10. Following the seizure of the vehicles, appellant filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition bearing no.218/2025 before the Trial Court seeking interim custody on 11.02.2025. This came to be dismissed by order dated 26.03.2025, noting that a Writ Petition filed by the Respondents was pending before the High Court regarding the legality of the re-investigation and the seizure, which would be rendered infructuous if the petition was to be decided at that stage. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of Criminal Petition No.3712 of 2025 seeking quashing of order dated 26.03.2025.

11. Similarly, the Respondent company also preferred Criminal Misc. Petition No.384/2025 before the Trial Court for return of properties which came to be dismissed by order dated 16.05.2025. Against this, Criminal Petition no.7896 of 2025 came to be filed before the High Court on 24.07.2025.

12. By way of the common impugned order, the High Court granted i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 821

SUPREME COURT OF INDIASANJAY KAROL, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.Krishnan Narayana – AppellantVersusState of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. Etc. – RespondentsCriminal Appeal Nos. 3458-3459 of 2026 [@ SLP(Criminal) Nos. 19205-06 of 2025]Decided On : 27-07-2026

IMPORTANT POINTSReleased of vehicle seized by Police – Registration is a relevant factor, but it is evidentiary and not conclusive of entitlement to interim possession of seized vehicle.

Cases Referred (2)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Krishnan Narayana – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. Etc. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 3458-3459 of 2026 [@ SLP(Criminal) Nos. 19205-06 of 2025]
Decided On : 27-07-2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
Released of vehicle seized by Police – Registration is a relevant factor, but it is evidentiary and not conclusive of entitlement to interim possession of seized vehicle.