IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1485 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Muthoot Finance Ltd., Sultan Palya Branch, 1/1, Ayappa Complex, Dinnur Main Road, R.T. Nagar Post, Bengaluru – 560 032.
Represented by its Manager, Sri. Akram Khan.
(By Sri. Venkataramana K.S., Advocate) AND:
… Petitioner The State of Karnataka, By K.G. Halli Police Station, Bengaluru, Represented by S.P.P., High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
… Respondent (By Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage, Addl. SPP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to allow this petition and quash the order dated 10.11.2017 in Crl.R.P.No.25019/2017 passed by the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore, wherein the revision court confirmed the order passed by the trial court dated 03.08.2016, which the trial court dismissed the application under section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking for interim custody of the property seized in P.F.No.165/2015.
This Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Venkataramana K.S., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage, learned Additional SPP for the respondent.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short), the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of the order dated 10.11.2017 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.25019/2017 as well as the order dated 03.08.2016 passed by the learned Magistrate, by which application filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code seeking interim custody of the property, which was seized in connection with C.C.No.380/2015, has been rejected and the aforesaid order has been upheld in the respective Revision Court.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application filed by the petitioner seeking interim custody was dismissed mainly on the ground that the investigation was pending. He further submitted that during the pendency of this proceeding, the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed and therefore, petitioner be permitted to file an application before the learned Magistrate seeking interim custody of the property, which was seized and the learned Magistrate be directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. Learned Additional SPP submits that he has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission and taking into account the fact that during the pendency of this petition, charge sheet has been filed, I deem it appropriate to grant an opportunity to file an application seeking interim custody in respect of the property, which has been seized during the course of investigation.
5. Accordingly, petition is disposed of with a direction that in case petitioner files a fresh application seeking interim custody of the articles, which have been seized during the course of investigation, the aforesaid application shall be dealt with in accordance with law by the learned Magistrate without being influenced by the earlier orders.
6. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mds/-