1

Crl.P.No.555/2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.555 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

M/S. MUTHOOT FINCROP LIMITED,

(A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER

THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956)

HAVING ITS BRANCH AT

MUDIGERE CHIKKAMANGALUR DISTRICT

REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL

MANAGER 3 OPERATIONS

MR.GEORGE MATHEWS.

& PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR N, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY MUDIGERE POLICE STATION,

REPRESENTED BY THE STATE

PUBLIC PROSECUTORS,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BENGALURU 3 560 001.

2.

G.B.SHARIF,

S/O BABA SAB,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

R/AT SABEENAHALLI PLAZA,

M.G.ROAD, MUDIGERE TOWN,

NATIVE OF GOONIBEEDU,

2

Crl.P.No.555/2021

MUDIGERE TALUK,

CHIKKAMANGALURU 3 577 13 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R-1

R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED

ORDER DATED 20.10.2020 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL

DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, CHIKKAMANGALURU IN

CRL RP NO.90/2020 CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE

ORDER DATED 24.08.2020 IN CR NO.56/2020 PASSED BY

THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DIVISION) AND JMFC

MUDIGERE CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT AND ETC.,

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR

ADMISSION, THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned HCGP for the first respondent.

2.

Petitioner who had filed an application under

section 457 of Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.56/2020 pending on the

file

of

Prl.Civil

Judge

and

JMFC,

Mudigere,

Chikkamagaluru has approached this Court challenging

the order dated 24.08.2020 passed by the Trial Court

rejecting his application and also the order dated

3

Crl.P.No.555/2021

20.10.2020 wherein court of Prl. District and Sessions

Judge, Chikkamagaluru has dismissed the revision

petition filed by him in Crl.R.P.No.90/2020 as not

maintainable.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the order passed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C is not

an interlocutory order and therefore revision under

Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable.

4.

Learned HCGP appearing for respondent

No.1 does not dispute that the impugned order passed

by the Trial Court is on an application filed under

Section 457 of Cr.P.C. However, he submits that the

said order is interlocutory and therefore revision is

rightly dismissed.

5.

Plain reading of Section 457 of Cr.P.C would

go to show that whenever the seizure of the property is

reported by the police officer to the learned Magistrate

4

Crl.P.No.555/2021

and if the said property is not produced before the

Criminal Court during the inquiry, the learned

Magistrate is required to pass an order with regard to

the disposal of such property or the delivery of such

property to the person entitled to the possession

thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, he

should pass an order with regard to custody and

production of the property. Section 457(2) of Cr.P.C.

provides that if the person entitled for possession is

known, the learned Magistrate is required to pass the

order for delivery of the property to such person subject

to conditions that may be imposed by the learned

Magistrate and if such person is not known, the learned

Magistrate is required to issue proclamation specifying

the articles of which such property consists and

requiring any person who may have a claim to appear

before and establish his claim within a period of six

months. Therefore, the order passed on the application

under Section 457 of Cr.P.C would definitely affect the

5

Crl.P.No.555/2021

rights of the parties substantially and such an order

cannot be said to be interlocutory order. In the present

case it is undisputed that the articles which are the

subject matter of the application were seized from the

possession of th