1. The petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1420 of 2016 has been filed to direct the respondent to complete the investigation and to file a final report in Crime No.460 of 2013 on the file of the respondent. The prayer in the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.14882 of 2015 is to forbear the respondent from seizing the jewels on the absence of the accused from the petitioner which is unconnected with the Crime No.460 of 2013 on the file of the respondent herein and thereby render justice.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State.

3. On the complaint lodged by one Meera, the respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.460 of 2013 under Sections 420, 406 and 415 IPC against one Satish Kumar, Parameswari and Rukmani. It is alleged by Meera that the accused were living opposite to her house, on account of which, she became very friendly with the accused family and taking advantage of the friendship, on 16.10.2014, the accused asked Meera to give her jewelleries temporarily, as they wanted to wear it for a wedding. Believing the representation of the accused, Meera handed over her jewels to the accused. It is alleged that the accused did not return the jewels and instead they had pledged the same with Muthoot Finance Limited and had obtained jewel loan from there. When Police wanted to seize the jewels from Muthoot Finance, Muthoot Finance has filed W.P.(MD) No.14882 of 2015, contending that the jewels were lawfully pledged by Satish Kumar and that they had every reason to believe that jewels belonged to him and to none and therefore, they prayed for a writ of mandamus and the prayer of which is stated above.

4. It is the allegation of Muthoot Finance that when people come to pledge their jewels, utmost care and caution is taken by their Company to satisfy that the jewels are not stolen jewellery and that the person, who brings jewels is the lawful owner of it. Despite such cautious approach, it is alleged by Muthoot Finance that Police very frequently make a roving enquiry and collect the details of jewels pledged by various persons and try to connect such transactions by recording false confession from the arrested persons.

5. This is indeed a very grey area in which it is dangerous for this Court to give any finding this way or that way. All over the world, enterprises that give jewel loans run the risk by accepting stolen articles from persons whose credentials will arouse least suspicion. Only when the original owner lodges Police complaint, truth will surface. The power of the Police to seize the articles of crime from the bailee cannot be disputed. When the bailer himself has no title, the bailee cannot perfect the title by claiming any lien over the property on the ground that they had taken sufficient care and caution before sanctioning the loan.

6. It is also not uncommon for the Police to indiscriminately seize articles from the bailee under the guise of investigation. Under such circumstances, the bailee also requires protection from Police high- handedness. Suffice to state that, in this case there is no allegation of theft, robbery or dacoity and the only allegation is that Satish Kumar had collected jewels on a false promise from Meera and pledged the same as if it belongs to him with Muthoot Finance.

7. It is the contention of Muthoot Finance that they have lien over the jewels and unless jewel loan is repaid, they cannot part with jewels and they will auction the jewels in accordance with law. Of course, this cannot be a defense when the person, who pledged does not have title to the property pledged.

8. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has submitted that the investigation in Crime No.460 of 2013 has been completed and that the final report was also filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti and that the same was returned on the ground that the jewels have not been seized by the Police.

9. In the considered opinion of