IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 5071 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1 . MUTHOOT FINANCE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HEAD OFFICE AT MUTHOOT CHAMBERS OPP. SARITHA THEATRE COMPLEX BANERJEE ROAD, KOCHI-682 018.

HAVING ONE OF ITS BRANCH AT BUILDING NO. 26/1 VSANTAPUR MAIN ROAD NEAR ASTRA HOSPITAL, KS LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 078.

REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER/

CHIEF MANAGER SRI. AJUMON P. GEORGE ...PETITIONER Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA (BY SRI. ANISH JOSE ANTONY, ADVOCATE)

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560 001.

2 . THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER/

INVESTIGATION OFFICER KUMARSWAMYLAYOUT POLICE STATION KUMARSWAMYLAYOUT BENGALURU, KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY HCPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001.

3 . SMT. SUDHA W/O APPAJIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO. 31, 4^TH CROSS OM SAKTHI TEMPLE ROAD YELACHENAHALLI, BNAGALORE-560 078.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;

R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE ANNEXURE-L ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE XXX ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU ON 06.02.2025 IN PCR NO. 15367/2024 OF KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT POLICE STATION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2025 AND REMAND BACK TO THE JURISDICTIONAL COURT FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION AFTER HEARING THE PETITIONER.

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

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The captioned petition is filed challenging the order dated 06.02.2025 passed in PCR.No.15367/2024 by the XXX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru vide Annexure-L and consequently, remand back to the jurisdictional court for fresh consideration of the application after hearing the petitioner.

2. Facts leading to the case are as under:

The petitioner, a Non-Banking Financial Company has approached this Court assailing the action of the Investigating Officer and the consequential order by which interim custody of gold ornaments seized from the petitioner has been handed over to respondent No.2 (complainant) without issuing notice to or hearing the petitioner, who asserts a lawful lien based on pledge. 3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of advancing loans to its customers against pledge of gold ornaments. One Sri. Anjumon P.George, working as Chief Manager was authorized on behalf of the petitioner/company. The petitioner advanced loan to Sri. Thimmegowda on 18.08.2022 and 20.10.2022 against pledges of gold ornaments. Subsequently, a complaint came to be registered by one Smt. Sudha on 19.12.2024, culminating in Crime No.1/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 303(1), 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. During the course of investigation, the police issued notice to the petitioner on 29.01.2025 and seized 188.7 grams gold ornaments, which were assigned P.F.No.12/2025.

4. It is not in dispute that the seized gold was in the lawful custody of the petitioner as a pledgee at the time of seizure. However, the Investigating Officer / trial Court has proceeded to grant interim custody of the said gold ornaments to respondent No.2 – the complainant, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

5. The short question that arises for consideration is:

Whether interim custody of seized gold ornaments can be granted to the complainant without notice to and hearing the petitioner-NBFC, which claims a lawful possessory right by way of pledge?

6. The law governing custody of seized property is well settled. Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (and the corresponding scheme under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) mandate that:

(i) Custody of sei