IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.1184 OF 2020 DATE: 16.03.2026 Between :

The Muthoot Finance Ltd Shah Ali Banda Branch, Hyderabad, Rep by its Branch Manager Smt. M. Lavanya, W/o M Ramesh, Aged 37 years, R/o Hyderabad. … Petitioner AND The State of Telangana Represented by its Principal Secretary Home Department Secretariat Hyderabad and five 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 4th Respondent in issuing the notice dated 06/01/2020 and seizure of gold on 30/12/2019 in respect of loan account MSL No.17968 and his personal visits and extending threats to the employees of the Petitioner to hand over the auctioned gold ornaments in respect of loan amounts sanctioned to Smt. Faridha Sulthana W/o Mohammed Najeebuddin in respect of loan accounts No MSL 15610, 15346, 460, 15411 and 15608 without any manner of right under the guise of registration of FIR No.178/2019 under Section under section 381 420, 506 of IPC and interference of the 4th respondent with the day today business activities of the Petitioners Company without following due process of law as illegal, unwarranted, unsustainable, arbitrary, unconstitutional against Law as well as principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the notice dated 06/01/2020 of 4th Respondent and direct the Respondents to return the gold seized on 30/12/2019 and not to interference with the business activities of the Petitioner without following due process of law…..”

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that, during the course of investigation in FIR No.178 of 2019, the police interacted with the petitioner in relation to the gold ornaments forming part of the subject matter of the said crime. It is contended that the allegation of the petitioner that respondent No.4 is interfering with the day-to-day business activities of the petitioner company is baseless and devoid of substance. It is further submitted that the police authorities are acting strictly within the bounds of law and in discharge of their official duties. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

4. I have perused the material placed on record.

5. The grievance of the petitioner, as discernible from the pleadings, is that respondent No.4 issued a notice dated 01.01.2020 and had earlier seized certain gold ornaments pertaining to its loan account No. MSL 17968 on 30.12.2019. It is further alleged that the police authorities have been making repeated personal visits to the petitioner’s establishment and threatening the employees to hand over auctioned gold ornaments relating to various other loan accounts, namely MSL Nos.15610, 15646, 460, 15411, and 15608, which were sanctioned to one Smt. Farida Sultana, under the guise of investigation in FIR No.178 of 2019.

6. A careful consideration of the pleadings of the petitioner and the explanation offered by the respondent police authorities indicates that the dispute essentially pertains to the scope and manner of police action in connection with the investigation of FIR No.178 of 2019. It is evident that certain gold ornaments, particularly those relating to loan account No. MSL 17968, have already been seized as part of the investigation. The petitioner’s apprehension appears to be with regard to further attempts by the police to secure additional gold ornaments, including those already auctioned.

7. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that any property seized during the course of investigation constitutes “case property” within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Such property is required to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Sections 102 and 451 Cr.P.C., a