Karnataka High Court
WP/4538/2024 of MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 1 October 2026
CNR: KAHC010095152024 NC: 2026:KHC:54676 WP No. 4538 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA WRIT PETITION NO. 4538 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 4538 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE
AT MANAPURAM HOUSE,
A.O. VALAPAD, TRISSUR DISTRICT,
KERALA - 680 567
HAVING ONE OF ITS BRANCH AT,
CHAMARAJNAGAR, BUILDING NO. 7570,
FIRST FLOOR, SHREE RAMA COMPLEX,
OPP. ANJANEYA TEMPLE, SAMPIGE ROAD,
CHAMRAJNAGAR, KARNATAKA - 571 313
REP. BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
AND LEGAL MANAGER,
MR. RAJ KUMAR D R.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANISH JOSE ANTONY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed
by PAVITHRA B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
2.
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CHAMARAJNAGAR - 571 313.
3.
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER/
CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
SANTHEMARAHALLI,
CHAMARAJANAGAR CIRCLE - 571 115.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. SRINIVAS KUMAR, HCGP)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTICE DTD 12.02.2024 ADDRESSED TO MANAPPURAM
FINANCE LIMITED, THE PETITIONER HEREIN , BY THE R-3
FURNISHED AS ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner - a Gold Finance Company is before this Court calling in question the police notice dated 12.02.2024 at Annexure-E, whereby, the petitioner was called upon by the respondent - Police to produce the alleged stolen gold articles before the Investigating Officer.
HC-KAR
2. When the matter was taken up today for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the police notice at Annexure-E, the petitioner has produced the gold ornaments before the Investigating Officer and the same has been returned to the petitioner - Company and all the gold ornaments are in the custody of the petitioner as on date.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that as and when the Investigating Officer or the concerned Court require the petitioner to produce the gold articles, the petitioner undertakes to produce the same either before the Investigating Officer or before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muthoot Fincorp Limited Vs The Station House Officer & Ors.1, wherein, in identical circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recorded an undertaking given by the similarly situated Gold 1 SLP No,9539/2023 DD 19.02.2024
HC-KAR
Finance Company and certain observations have been made therein.
5. Relying upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muthoot Fincorp Limited (supra), the petitioner submits that the petitioner - Company is also prepare to file such an undertaking before this Court to the effect that, till the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner - Company would not in any way deal with the alleged stolen gold articles.
6. In the light of the categorical submission of the petitioner that, till the conclusion of proceedings either before the police or before the jurisdictional Court, the petitioner would not deal with the gold ornaments in question, the present writ petition could be disposed of.
7. The impleading application is filed by the person claiming to be the actual owner of the alleged stolen article. His right to receive the alleged stolen article in question is subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Magistrate and therefore, no orders can be passed for release of the gold article at this juncture.
HC-KAR
8. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of taking note of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would file an affidavit of undertaking to the effect that, till the conclusion of proceedings before the respondent - Police or before the jurisdictional Court, the petitioner would not in any way deal with the gold ornaments in question.
The petitioner to file affidavit of undertaking within a period of one week from today.
Sd/- (T.P.VIVEKANANDA) JUDGE
JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13