IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.14681 OF 2018 DATE: 11.12.2025 Between :

M/s. Muthoot Fincorp Limited, A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Muthoot Centre, Punnen Road, Trivandrum, Kerala having its branch at Ushodayanagar, MVP colony Branch, Visakhapatnam rep., by its Authorised Signatory Mr. Daniel Adarsh.

… Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad and four 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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in interfering with the business activities of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently declare the respondents have no right over the properties under pledge with the petitioner without repaying the amounts availed by respondent No.5 vide Letter No.14/Cr- A/CYB/2018 dated 13.01.2018 and recently on 15.04.2018 and without following due process of law…”

2. Heard Ms. Greeshma Lahati, learned counsel representing M/s. Amancharla V. Gopala Rao, 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 respondent Nos. 2 and 3 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 respondent No. 5, 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 24.04.2018, after considering the submissions of both sides, directed respondent No. 2 not to demand or compel the petitioner to deposit the pledged gold ornaments lying in its custody, which were the subject of a loan transaction between the petitioner and respondent No. 5. At the same time, liberty was reserved to the investigating officer to conduct a fair and proper investigation into the crime in accordance with law.

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. 53 of 2021 dated 09.02.2021;

(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 obtaining prior permission from the concerned Court.

On the basis of this undertaking, the Court had set aside the impugned notice and directed the authorities to act strictly in accordance with the said terms.

7. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a similar interim