SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 2583

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. Arun Govindraj., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. M. R. Patil, HCGP Sri. Srinandan Karthikeyan, Advocate

Police exceeded their authority by sealing premises and seizing a vehicle outside the scope of a search warrant, violating constitutional rights.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14, Article 19(1)(e), Article 21, Article 300-A - Search and seizure warrant - Legality of sealing residential premises and seizing vehicle - The court held that the police exceeded their authority by sealing the residential premises and seizing a vehicle not authorized by the search warrant, violating constitutional guarantees. (Paras 10, 16, 20)

(B) Search and seizure - Scope of authority - The court emphasized that search warrants are limited to specific actions, and any actions beyond the scope, such as seizing unrelated items, are illegal and arbitrary. (Paras 11, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, involved in a business dispute, claimed illegal seizure of his vehicle and sealing of his residence under a search warrant. The actions were challenged on grounds of violating constitutional rights and exceeding authority.

Findings of Court:
The court found the sealing of the premises and vehicle seizure to be illegal and arbitrary, beyond the scope of the search warrant.

Issues: Whether the sealing of the premises and seizure of the vehicle were within the scope of the search warrant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondents acted outside the authority of the search warrant; thus, their actions were arbitrary and illegal, violating the petitioner’s constitutional rights.

Result: Writ petition allowed; actions declared illegal and directed de-sealing and return of the vehicle.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top