IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No.6308 OF 2018

DATE : 17.12.2025

Between:

The Muthoot Finance Limited

…Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana & Others

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in issuing the Notice No. 47/0W/I-WCO-T-IX/2018 dated 16.02.2018 under Sec. 91/160 Cr.P.C. and interference with the day-to-day business activities of the Petitioners Company without following due process of law as illegal, unwarranted. unsustainable, arbitrary against Law as well as principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the Notice No. 47/0W/I-WCO-T-IX/2018 dated 16.02.2018 of 4th Respondent and direct the Respondents to not to interference with the business activities of the Petitioner without following

due process of law and pass.......”

2. Heard Mr.Bhaskar Rao Pampari, learned counsel representing Mr.K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 issued a notice dated 16.02.2018 under Sections 91 and 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), directing the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer. The petitioner contends that such notice amounts to interference with his day-to-day business activities and is issued without any lawful basis. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed seeking to set aside the said notice and to restrain the respondent police authorities from interfering with the petitioner’s business operations.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the allegation that the respondent police authorities are interfering with the petitioner’s business affairs without any lawful cause is unfounded. He explains that during the course of investigation in Crime No.37 of 2018, it was found that certain gold jewellery, mentioned in the petition, had been pledged by the petitioner, who is shown as accused No.1 in the said case. Although the petitioner claims not to be an accused, the gold ornaments in question were identified as material objects related to the crime under investigation. Consequently, the said jewellery was seized in accordance with Section 102 Cr.P.C. and duly produced before the trial court. The case has since culminated in Calendar Case No.202 of 2019, which is presently pending trial before the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Therefore, it is submitted that the grievance of the petitioner has become redundant and devoid of merit, as the notice issued under Sections 91/160 Cr.P.C. has served its purpose and no further interference is warranted. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. I have perused the material available on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner relates to the issuance of a notice under Sections 91 and 160 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer, directing him to appear and produce the mortgaged jewellery alleged to be connected with Crime No.37 of 2018. However, as reported by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the record reveals that the jewellery in question was already seized in the course of investigation under a valid mediator’s report (panchanama) and has been duly produced before the competent trial court. The proceedings have since culminated in a charge sheet and are now pending trial in C.C. No.202 of 2019 before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

7. Under Section 91 Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer is empowered to issue a summons or written order for the production of any document or thing necessary or desirable for the purposes of investigation, inquiry, or trial. Similarly, Section 160 Cr.P.C. authorizes the police to require attendance of pe