Custody of property during trial does not settle title; the interim arrangement is subject to final adjudication.

1. The petitioner herein married the 4th respondent in the year 2011. At the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioners had given her 300 sovereigns of gold ornaments, a Ford Endeavour Car and other valuables. A sum of Rs.42 lakhs was also given by her parents to her husband as a gift. The parties fell apart when it was revealed that the husband had cheated her by claiming to be a Post Graduate Doctor, which he was not. The husband and his family members are also alleged to have subjected the petitioner to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry.

2. The petitioner as well as her mother preferred separate complaints and two crimes were registered. Crime No. 528 of 2013 was registered at the instance of the mother of the petitioner herein alleging offences punishable under S.406, S.420 of the Indian Penal Code and under S.15 (3) of the Indian medical Council Act, 1956. Crime No. 511 of 2014 was registered at the instance of the petitioner against her husband and family members under S.498(A) of the Indian Penal code.

3. In the course of investigation in Crime No. 528/2013, it was revealed that the accused Nos. 1 to 3, being the husband and family members, had pledged the gold ornaments weighing 1.7 kg, given to the petitioner by her family members, with the Muthoot Fin Corp, the 3rd respondent herein, and had availed a loan of Rs.30 lakhs. This according to the de facto complainant was without her consent, knowledge or concurrence. A notice under S.91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued to the 3rd respondent by the investigating officer and they were directed to produce the entire gold ornaments categorizing the same as stolen property.

4. On receipt of the said notice, the 3rd respondent rushed to this Court and preferred W. P. (C) No. 12527 of 2013 with a prayer to issue appropriate orders to quash the notices issued by the investigating officer and also for a declaration that the seizure of the gold ornaments referred to in the writ petition was not warranted in the investigation of Crime No. 528 of 2013 of the Hosdurg Police Station.

5. This Court by interim order dated 07/06/2013 directed the 3rd respondent to produce the articles before the learned Magistrate and the Court below was directed to return the articles to the 3rd respondent after preparing an inventory. In pursuance to the orders of this Court, gold ornaments were produced and the same were returned back to the 3rd respondent herein on executing a bond.

6. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner herein preferred Annexure - A application on 27/06/2013 before the learned Magistrate seeking interim custody of the gold ornaments.

7. The learned Magistrate considered the prayer of the petitioner and also the contentions of the 3rd respondent and by Annexure - C order, rejected the application. The said order is under challenge.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned at Senior counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the investigation has revealed that the gold ornaments were clandestinely pledged by the accused with the 3rd respondent without her consent or knowledge. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is the real owner who is entitled to possession of the property pending final disposal and that the 3rd respondent is not entitled to retain the same. Much reliance is placed by the learned counsel to the order dated 10/12/2014 in Crl. M. C. No. 4010 of 2014 preferred by the petitioner challenging the common order in respect of gold p