IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No.2604 OF 2019

DATE: 16.12.2025

Between :

M/s. Muthoot Finance Limited,

… Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana & 3 others

… Respondents.

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking 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 4^th Respondent in issuing the letter No.113/CrCCPSRCKJ201819 and notice dated 05 02 2019 and his personal visits and extending threats to the employees of the Petitioner to hand over the pledged gold ornaments in respect of loan amounts sanctioned to Sri Dileep Singh E K in respect of loan accounts Nos MHP 000136 and 000135 under the guise of registration of FIR No 113/2018 under Section 406 420 506 120B 1PC Section 66C and 66D of IT Act Section 5 of The Andhra Pradesh Protection of depositors from Financial Establishments Act1999 and Section 4 and 6 of the Price Chits and Money Circulation Schemes Banning Act1978 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.113/CrCCPSRCK/201819 dated 05 02 2019 of 4^th 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 Sri. K. B. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents, particularly respondent No.4 have been interfering with the petitioner’s business operations without any lawful authority, particularly in relation to the gold ornaments pledged with the petitioner by Sri Dileep Singh E.K., who has defaulted in repayment of the loan amount. Aggrieved by such interference, the present petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions to protect the petitioner’s legitimate business interest and possession over the pledged property.

4. This Court, by an interim order dated 11.02.2019, after considering the submissions of both sides, directed respondents- Police that the Police shall not insist the petitioner for handing over of the gold ornaments mentioned in impugned proceedings dated 05.02.2019. Petitioner was directed not to release the gold ornaments to any person and is held personally responsible if the gold ornaments are missing and also directed to keep the gold ornaments is safe custody.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent police authorities have since filed the charge sheet, and the matter has progressed to the stage of examination of the accused. He also brings to the notice of this Court that in another proceeding arising out of a challenge to a notice issued under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner had preferred an appeal wherein an affidavit of undertaking was filed by the authorized officer of the petitioner company before the competent Court.

6. In that undertaking, the petitioner agreed to cooperate with the investigation and trial process and undertook to:

(i) Produce the pledged ornaments as and when called upon by the Investigating Officer or the concerned Court for inspection, photography, or preparation of panchanama, if required;

(ii) Produce the pledged ornaments before the concerned Court as and when directed in relation to the proceedings arising out of FIR/Crime No. 113 of 2018 dated 28.11.2018; (iii) Not hand over the pledged ornaments to the pledgor (respondent No. 3 therein) or permit redemption of the pledge without prior permission of the concerned Court;

and (iv) Not sell, dispose of, or part with possession of the pledged ornaments without obtaini