JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents or any other officials from in any way conducting seizure of the gold articles pledged by various customers with the petitioners under the colour of conducting investigation and seizure in Crime No. 31 of 2004 (C.C. No.1 of 2011) on the file of the 5th respondent without giving an opportunity to the petitioners or without following the due process of law or for a similar direction as obtained by the various Non-Banking Financial Institutions from the Madurai Bench of this Honourable Court by invoking Art 226 of Constitution of India in a similar case.)

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents or any other officials from in any way conducting seizure of the gold articles pledged by various customers with the petitioners under the colour of conducting investigation and seizure in Crime No. 31 of 2004 (C.C. No.1 of 2011) on the file of the 5th respondent without giving an opportunity to the petitioners or without following the due process of law or for a similar direction as obtained by the various Non-Banking Financial Institutions from the Madurai Bench of this Honourable Court by invoking Art 226 of Constitution of India.

2. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is absolutely misconstrued. High Court cannot entertain a criminal proceedings in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates for disposal of the property involved in a criminal case. Aggrieved persons are bound to approach the competent Criminal Court of Law for disposal of property. Therefore, such a grievance raised relating to a criminal offence cannot be considered in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is an admitted fact that some customers pledged the stolen jewelleries in the petitioners Bank. Based on the complaint filed by the original owners of the jewellery, Police registered a Criminal Case in Crime No.31 of 2004 and investigations conducted and the criminal case is pending before the competent Court of law. The petitioners Bank have initiated steps to auction the jewelleries as the said customers, who pledged the jewel, became defaulters in repayment of jewel loan.

3. The grievances of the petitioners Bank is that they are unable to auction the property in order to realise the loan amount. It is needless to state that once the jewellery pledged is identified as stolen property and a criminal case is registered, such a property became the material items in the criminal case and therefore, the properties are to be dealt with in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. The stolen properties are to be produced before the competent Court for conducting trial. The original owners are to be identified by the investigating authority. Thus, the procedures as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedures is to be followed in order to deal with such properties. Contrarily, the Bank cannot be allowed to auction the stolen property.

4. Undoubtedly, the Petitioners Bank without knowing the fact that the jewelleries are stolen properties, granted jewel loan in favour of the customers. However, they will have to realise the loan amount in the manner prescribed and not by auctioning the stolen property after registration of a criminal case by the competent Police authorities.

5. The Banks are expected to be cautious before granting jewel loan. They are granting all such jewel loans no doubt by following certain procedures. During the course, if any person pledging the stolen jewellery and a criminal case is registered, then the Bank cannot be allowed to deal with such stolen jewelery independently and they are bound to approach the competent Criminal Court of law by following the procedures.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners made a submission that in