IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1653 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

SMT. GOURAMMA H AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS W/O RANGASWAMY NO.21, 2ND CROSS, SHARADA RESIDENCY, BHEL LAYOUT, RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560098 …APPELLANT Digi tally (BY SRI. MAHESH M, ADVOCATE)

signed by NIRMALA DEVI AND:

Location:

HIGH COURT 1. MUTHOOT FINANCE LIMITED OF BRANCH AT NO. 434, KARNATAKA

60TH FEET ROAD, THIMMAIAH ROAD, MANJUNATHA NAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU- 560010

2. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560001

3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU- 560085 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANISH JOSE ANTONY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA FOR R2 & R3)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER 19.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 25563/2024 (GM-POLICE) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. For the reasons stated in the applications, IA.No.2/2024 and IA.No.1/2024, the same are allowed.

2. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.25563/2024 (GM-Police).

3. The respondent No.1 [Muthoot Finance Limited – hereafter MFL] had filed the said petition impugning the action of the police authorities in forcefully seizing gold articles that were pledged by its customers with it. MFL claims that the said action was in violation of its right to carry on business.

4. MFL is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the Reserve Bank of India has registered it to conduct business as a Non-Banking Financial Company [NBFC] under the provisions of Chapter III B of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. MFL claimed that it had, during the course of its business, advanced sums against collateral of gold ornaments that were pledged with it. The said goods was sought to be seized by the police authorities on the allegation that the same were stolen property.

5. The learned Single Judge had, following the decision of the Supreme Court in M.T.Enrica Lexie vs. Dorama: (2012) 6 SCC 760, granted partial relief to MFL and had directed release of the said goods subject to certain conditions. In terms of the said decision, the goods in question were directed to be restored to MFL after taking videographs and photographs of the same and on MFL furnishing an undertaking to produce the same if and when needed by the police or Court in the inquiry, investigation or at the trial. Additionally, it was directed that the articles in question would not be converted, pledged or sold or otherwise disposed of till after and subject to the outcome of the concerned criminal case.

6. The appellant claims to be the lawful owner of the goods in question and it is at her instance that the FIR was lodged.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Muthoot Fincorp Limited vs. The Station House Officer & Ors., : Crl.A.No.1026/2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9539/2023. The said order sets out the terms of undertaking furnished by MFL in that case. The said order dated 19.2.2024 is set out below:

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. On the last date, we expressed our prima facie view that there was no justification for taking action under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the CrPC’).

4. There is an additional affidavit dated 16.02.2024 filed by the authorized officer of the petitioner, Shri Am