IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.
Parthiban Ramakrishnan S/o. Mr. Ramakrishnan - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No.21114 of 2025 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 14-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. illegality of vehicle seizure and sealing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments concerning the legality of actions under the warrant. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. failure of authorities to adhere to the warrant. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. actions deemed ultra vires and illegal. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. court's ruling and directions to restore petitioner’s rights. (Para 20 , 21) |
ORDER :
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.
The captioned petition is filed seeking a declaration that the act of seizing the petitioner’s vehicle and sealing his residential premises at Bengaluru is illegal, arbitrary, and beyond the scope of the search and seizure warrant dated 13.06.2025 issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB cases, Chennai. The petitioner further seeks a direction to release his vehicle and de-seal the residential premises.
2. Brief Facts are as under:
The petitioner and one Vignesh had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding concerning the business operations of BLR Pvt. Ltd.. The petitioner asserts that substantial services were rendered under the said MOU, resulting in dues to the extent of Rs.75 crores. Subsequently, Vignesh initiated pre-institution mediation proceedings before the authorities at Chennai, claiming Rs.38,12,93,543/- from the petitioner. The said proceedings ended in a non-starter report owing to non- appearance of Vignesh. The second respondent– complainant lodged a complaint on 09.06.2025, pursuant to which Crime No.103/2025 offences punishable under Sections 420 , 465, 467, 468, 471, 506(1) read with 120-B IPC was registered. In the complaint, the complainant Vignesh Ali alleged that the present petitioner, along with one Ramakrishna and his wife, introduced themselves as exporters of cashew nuts under the name MSGKL Food Products, claiming to be earning substantial profits. It is further alleged that the petitioner and the said Ramakrishna, being aware of the complainant’s company’s strong financial standing, conspired to cheat him with an intention to unlawfully obtain financial benefits.
3. It is alleged that, under the guise of having received a large export order from abroad, the accused induced the complainant to advance loans, which were transferred through the complainant’s HDFC Bank account at Gandhinagar. According to the complainant, a total sum of Rs.27,86,32,750/- was lent to the accused and associated persons, of which only Rs.1,30,00,000/- has been repaid by the petitioner and Ramakrishna. Despite repeated demands, the remaining amount has not been returned.
4. The complainant has further alleged that when he persisted in demanding repayment, the accused communicated through one Lakshmanan, who falsely posed as a Magistrate in a Bengaluru criminal court, stating that there would be a delay in repayment. When the complainant insisted, he was allegedly threatened using influence a false criminal case would be filed against him and he would be sent to jail.
5. It is further contended that upon inquiry, the complainant discovered that the petitioner and others had not utilised the funds for the stated business purposes, but had diverted the amounts to their sister concern MSBLR Billionaire India Private Limited. Alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust, and misuse of the substantial amounts advanced, the present complaint came to be registered.
6. On a written application submitted by the complainant, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, proceeded to issue a search warrant authorising the police to search certain suspected premises, namely: (i) Prestige Agastha Golf Village, Saibappa Temple, Agastha Road near Anjaneyapura, Kothanur, Bengaluru; (ii) Jekyll Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Ramkrishna Palace near Veterinary Hospital, Marungur–Panduruthi Taluk; (iii) Jekyll Constructions; and (iv) BLFR, Sadashiva Temple, Main Road. The warrant specifically empowered the executing officers to search the above premises and to seize and take possession only of such instruments
Police exceeded their authority by sealing premises and seizing a vehicle outside the scope of a search warrant, violating constitutional rights.
The District Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to seal premises prior to a court declaration of property as proceeds of crime under BNSS.
The procedure prescribed under Sections 105 and 101 of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature and not following the procedure would render the search made in violation of the procedure as invalid.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.