Sec. 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not empower police officers to seize immovable property, and such actions are illegal and contrary to established legal principles.

JUDGMENT

SUNIL B.SHUKRE,J. - Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. Affidavit-in-reply dtd. 13/12/2022 along with the letter dtd. 12/12/2022 tendered to the Court across the bar is taken on record. The affidavit-in-reply is marked as "document A" and the letter dtd. 12/12/2022 is marked as "document B" for identification.

3. The issue involved in this petition - "Whether or not immovable property can be seized by the Investigating Officer in exercise of his power under Sec. 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Code" for short), is something, which does not take too long to answer. The issue, in fact, has been answered by the Apex Court in an authoritative manner in it's judgment delivered by a 3-Judge Bench in the case of Nevada Properties Private Limited Through its Directors Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2019) 20 Supreme Court Cases 119.

4. The Supreme Court in Nevada Properties (P) Ltd. (supra) has categorically held that seizure of immovable property by Police Officer under Sec. 102 of the Code is not permissible and if it is to be in countenanced by any Court of law, chaos in society will follow.

5. In the main part of the judgment, in paragraph 32, the Supreme Court has observed thus:-

"In case and if we allow the police officer to "seize'' immovable property on a mere "suspicion of the commission of any offence'', it would mean and imply giving a drastic and extreme power to dispossess, etc. to the police officer on a mere conjecture and surmise, that is, on suspicion, which has hitherto not been exercised. We have hardly come across any case where immovable property was seized vide an attachment order that was treated as a seizure order by police officer under Sec. 102 of the Code. The reason is obvious. Disputes relating to title, possession, etc., of immovable property are civil disputes which have to be decided and adjudicated in civil courts. We must discourage and stall any attempt to convert civil disputes into criminal cases to put pressure on the other side [See Binod Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and Another) : (2014) 10 SCC 663)]. Thus, it will not be proper to hold that Sec. 102 of the Code empowers a police officer to seize immovable property, land, plots, residential houses, streets or similar properties. Given the nature of criminal litigation, such seizure of an immovable property by the police officer in the form of an attachment and dispossession would not facilitate investigation to collect evidence/material to be produced during inquiry and trial".

6. From the above referred observations, it would be clear that no immovable property is amenable to seizure under Sec. 102 of the Code and what is to be seized thereunder is only a movable property. In reaching the conclusion, the Apex Court considered the attributes of immovable property and also the scope and object of Sec. 102 of the Code. It observed in paragraph 29 that immovable property cannot, in its strict sense, be seized. It further observed that language of Sec. 102 of the Code does not support the interpretation that a police officer has the power to dispossess a person in occupation and take possession of immovable property in order to seize it. In paragraph 30, the Apex Court further observed that the scope and object of Sec. 102 of the Code is to help and assist investigation and to enable the police officer to collect and collate evidence to be produced to prove the charge complained of and set up in the charge-sheet. These observations would only show that what could be actually seized by the Police Officer during the course of investigation by exercising his power under Sec. 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the object, article, piece of paper and the like, which would serve as a piece of evidence for proving the charge against the accused and which is capable of being physically produced before the trial court. Immovable property is something wh