IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1913 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

1. MANNAPURAM FINANCE LTD

A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER

THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956

HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT

MANNAPURAM HOUSE

A.O.VALAPAD, TRISSUR DISTRICT

KERALA - 680 567

HAVING ITS BRANCH AT

KENGERI UPANAGAR MAIN ROAD

BRANCH - 560 060

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER

Digitally

signed by SRI GOBINATH J.

SRIDEVI S

…APPELLANT

Location:

(BY SRI ANISH JOSE ANTONY, ADVOCATE)

High Court

of Karnataka

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

HOME DEPARTMENT

VIDHANA SOUDHA

AMBEDKAR VEDI

BENGALAURU - 560 010

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER INVESTIGATION OFFICER KENGERI POLICE STATION BENGALURU - 560 001

3. KARUR VYSYA BANK REP BY ITS BRANCH HEAD HAVING OFFICE AT NO.9 OUTER RING ROAD OPPOSITE SHIRKE APT K.S. TOWN BANGALORE - 560 060 (IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 13.11.2025)

4. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 (IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 13.11.2025)

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & 2, SRI BALA SUBRAMANYA K., ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. No.30950/2025 IN ORDER DATED 13.11.2025 FROM PARAGRAPH NOS.3 TO 12, AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS, AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

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. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 13.11.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.30950/2025 (GM-POLICE), whereby the appellant is called upon to disclose certain data, inter alia, relating to the cases of alleged stolen gold or gold ornaments pledged with the appellant.

2. The appellant, who is engaged in lending money against gold, had filed the writ petition, inter alia, challenging the notice dated 09.10.2025 issued under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNSS], whereby it was called upon to disclose documents and produce the gold pledged by the accused. The principal accused in the case, was working as an Assistant Manager with Karur Vysya Bank, Kengeri Branch (the complainant). Apparently, she has stated that with the intention of misusing the gold pledged with the complainant by its customers, she had replaced the original gold ornaments pledged by the said customer with spurious gold articles. Thereafter, she had pledged the original gold ornaments with the appellant against loans availed from the appellant.

3. In the aforesaid context, the concerned police authority had issued the notice dated 09.10.2025, inter alia, calling upon the appellant to disclose the details regarding the gold ornaments that were pledged; documents pertaining to the loan availed by the pledger; other details of the loan account; CCTV footage of the time when the husband of the principal accused (also accused, Ravi Nair) had come to the appellant's branch to pledge the gold;

and to produce the gold articles.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no cavil with the said notice and they are bound to comply with the same. However, the only limited relief that is sought by the appellant is that any seizure of the said gold articles should be in accordance with Section 107 of the BNSS.

5. The learned counsel for the State submits that if any seizure is made, it shall be in accordance by following the procedure under Section 107 of the BNSS.

6. In view of the aforesaid statement, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant's grievance in the writ petition stands addressed and the writ pet