IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 15314 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

MUTHOOT FINANCE CO LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, SAUNDERS ROAD, FRAZER TOWN BRANCH, BENGALURU-560045.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.S. VENKATARAMANA, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC))

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS UNDERSECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU BENGALURU-560005.

Digitally signed by SUMA

2. STATE BY PULIKESHINAGARA PS Location:

HIGH BY ITS SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, COURT OF BENGALURU-560005.

KARNATAKA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND LETTER DATED 11.08.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged a notice dated 11.08.2021 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’).

2. The respondent No.2 registered Crime No.247/2021 for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth referred to as ‘IPC’). This was based on information furnished by one Mr.Haseeb Khan, who claimed that he had deposited certain money with the petitioner lured by the offer of interest at 2% per month. It appears that the accused in that case and Smt.Nafisa Siddique had purchased gold ornaments using the deposit so made by several customers and that the said Mrs.Nafisa Siddique had pledged those ornaments with the petitioner. The respondent No.2 on coming to know of the same, caused a notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to the petitioner for seizure of the said ornaments. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that various cases are registered against the petitioner and that the charge sheet is now filed against the petitioner and therefore, the notice in question would serve no useful purpose. He also contends that the petitioner is bound to return the ornaments to Mrs.Nafisa Siddique after she repays the loan and hence, the ornaments cannot be handed over to the custody of the respondent No.2.

4. The learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand submits that Mrs.Nafisa Siddique is the accused No.2 in Crime No.247/2021. He contends that Mrs.Nafisa Siddique as well as the directors of the petitioner are all hand in glove and have conspired to commit offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. He therefore submits that the impugned notice cannot be assailed by the petitioner, as these jewels have to be in the custody of the Court.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.

6. The respondent No.2 in the course of the investigation of Crime No.247/2021 has come to know that the accused No.2, who was in receipt of certain gold ornaments from the accused had pledged it with the petitioner. The said gold ornaments, which purportedly are product of crime, had to be taken into custody by the respondent No.2 for effective closure of the First Information Report registered in Crime No.247/2021. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the notice issued by the respondent No.2. Consequently, this petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

Sd/-

(R. NATARAJ)

JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21