The FIR is registered for the offence under

Sections 406, 419, 420, 468 r/w 34 of IPC against the

Chilume Educational Cultural and Rural Development and

another namely Lokesh.K M. During the course of

investigation, the police have seized certain immovable

- 3 -

property belonging to accused No.1 therein. The petitioner

claims that the property, which has been seized by the

police, is leased to the petitioner by one Ravikumar.

Therefore, filed an application under Sections 451 and 457

of Cr.P.C for release of the immovable property seized

before the learned Magistrate.

The

learned

Magistrate

dismissed

the

application and the same was confirmed by the learned

Sessions Judge in exercise of the power conferred under

Section 397 of Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved, this criminal

petition is filed.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent

No.1 - State.

4. The petitioner claims that the accused No.1

along with other sister concerns was carrying on various

social welfare activities and other allied activities. During

the course of investigation, the police seized the

- 4 -

immovable property of which the petitioner claims to be

lessee carrying on the business.

5. The petitioner's grievance is that in view of the

seizure of immovable property, the business of the

petitioner has come to a standstill.

6. Section 102 of Cr.P.C deals with the power of

the Police Officers to seize certain property and states that

any Police Officers may seize any property, which may be

reported or suspected to have been stolen, or which may

be found under circumstances which create suspicion of

the commission of any offence. In other words, the

reading of the said provision indicates that any property

means only movable property and not an immovable

property. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NEVADA

PROPERTIES

PVT.

LTD

VS.

THE

STATE

OF

MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2019 SC

4554 at para No.21 held as follows.

- 5 -

21. In view of the aforesaid discussion,

the Reference is answered by holding that the

power of a police officer under Section 102 of

the Code to seize any property, which may be

found under circumstances that create suspicion

of the commission of any offence, would not

include the power to attach, seize and seal an

immovable property.

7. Hence, the seizure of the immovable property

by the police is one without authority of law. The learned

Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge rejected

the application filed by the petitioner stating that the

further proceedings in Crime No.276/2022 registered by

the Halasurgate Police Station has been stayed by this

Court

in

W.P.No.25707/2022.

Though

the

further

investigation is stayed, however, that will not preclude the

right of the petitioner in seeking release of the immovable

property, which has been illegally seized by the police

without authority of law. Accordingly, I pass the following;

- 6 -

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 10.04.2023

passed by LV Additional City Civil and Sessions

Judge,

Bengaluru

(CCC-56)

in

Crl.R.P.No.145/2023

and

the

order

dated

01.02.2023 passed by the III Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in Crime

No.276/2022 on the application filed under

Sections

451

and

457

of

Cr.P.C

stands

quashed. Consequently, the application stands

allowed.

(iii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to

file an appropriate application seeking de-

freezing of the bank account, and if such

application is filed, the learned Magistrate to

consider the same in accordance with law.

(iv)

Pending applications, if any, are

also disposed off.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NBM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4