Karnataka High Court
Parthiban Ramakrishnan vs State Of Karnataka on 14 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46855
WP No. 21114 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.21114 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
PARTHIBAN RAMAKRISHNAN
S/O. MR. RAMAKRISHNAN,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/A. VILLA 134, AVENUE 09,
PRESTIGE AUGUSTA GOLF VILLAGE,
OPPOSITE SAI BABA TEMPLE,
KADA AGRAHARA ROAD, RAMPURA,
BIDERAHALLI, VIRGONAGAR
PO, BENGALURU-560 049.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARUN GOVINDRAJ., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
NIJAMUDDIN REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
JAMKHANDI
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.
2. STATE OF TAMIL NADU,
REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, EDF-I,
BETA II, VEPERY,
CHENNAI-07.
3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, MYLAPORE,
CHENNAI-600 004.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46855
WP No. 21114 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU,
132, E VK SAMPATH RD, PERIAMET,
VEPERY, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI,
TAMIL NADU-600 007.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SRINANDAN KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDAI PRAYING TO-A) ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI/ MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DECLARING THE SEALING OF
THE PETITIONER'S RESIDENTIAL PREMISES AND THE SEIZURE
OF HIS VEHICLES AS ILLEGAL, ULTRA VIRES, AND VIOLATIVE
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND CONSEQUENTLY
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 TO I) FORTHWITH
UNSEAL/RELEASE THE PETITIONERS RESIDENCE AT VILLA 134,
AVENUE 09, PRESTIGE AUGUSTA GOLF VILLAGE, OPPOSITE
SAI BABA TEMPLE, KADA AGRAHARA ROAD, RAMPURA,
BIDERAHALLI, VIRGONAGAR PO, BENGALURU-560 AND 049
AND RESTORE PEACEFUL POSSESSION TO HIM II) RETURN
THE CAR BEARING REGISTRATION NO. PY 05 VF 0606 TO THE
PETITIONER FORTHWITH.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed seeking a declaration that the act of seizing the petitioner's vehicle and sealing his residential premises at Bengaluru is illegal, arbitrary, and beyond the scope of the search and seizure warrant -3- NC: 2025:KHC:46855 WP No. 21114 of 2025 HC-KAR dated 13.06.2025 issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB cases, Chennai. The petitioner further seeks a direction to release his vehicle and de-seal the residential premises.
2. Brief Facts are as under:
The petitioner and one Vignesh had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding concerning the business operations of BLR Pvt. Ltd.. The petitioner asserts that substantial services were rendered under the said MOU, resulting in dues to the extent of Rs.75 crores. Subsequently, Vignesh initiated pre-institution mediation proceedings before the authorities at Chennai, claiming Rs.38,12,93,543/- from the petitioner. The said proceedings ended in a non-starter report owing to non- appearance of Vignesh. The second respondent- complainant lodged a complaint on 09.06.2025, pursuant to which Crime No.103/2025 offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506(1) read with 120B -4- NC: 2025:KHC:46855 WP No. 21114 of 2025 HC-KAR IPC was registered. In the complaint, the complainant Vignesh Ali alleged that the present petitioner, along with one Ramakrishna and his wife, introduced themselves as exporters of cashew nuts under the name MSGKL Food Products, claiming to be earning substantial profits. It is further alleged that the petitioner and the said Ramakrishna, being aware of the complainant's company's strong financial standing, conspired to cheat him with an intention to unlawfully obtain financial benefits.
3. It is alleged that, under the guise of having received a large export order from abroad, the accused induced the complainant to advance loans, which were transferred through the complainant's HDFC Bank account at Gandhinagar. According to the complainant, a total sum of Rs.27,86,32,750/- was lent to the accused and associated persons, of which only Rs.1,30,00,000/- has been repaid by the petitioner and Ramakrishna. Despite repeated demands, the remaining amount has not been returned.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:46855 WP No. 21114 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. The complainant has further alleged that when he persisted in demanding repayment, the accused communicated through one Lakshmanan, who falsely posed as a Magistrate in a Bengaluru criminal court, stating that there would be a delay in repayment. When the complainant insisted, he was allegedly threatened using influence a false criminal case would be filed against him and he would be sent to jail.
5. It is further contended that upon inquiry, the complainant discovered that the petitioner and others had not utilised the funds for the stated business purposes, but had diverted the amounts to their sister concern MSBLR Billionaire India Private Limited. Alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust, and misuse of the substantial amounts advanced, the present complaint came to be registered.
6. On a written application submitted by the complainant, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, proceeded to issue a search warrant authorising -6- NC: 2025:KHC:46855 WP No. 21114 of 2025 HC-KAR the police to search certain suspected premises, namely:
(i) Prestige Agastha Golf Village, Saibappa Temple, Agastha Road near Anjaneyapura, Kothanur, Bengaluru;
(ii) Jekyll Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Ramkrishna Palace near Veterinary Hospital, Marungur-Panduruthi Taluk; (iii) Jekyll Constructions; and (iv) BLFR, Sadashiva Temple, Main Road. The warrant specifically empowered the executing officers to search the above premises and to seize and take possession only of such instruments, documents, materials or properties that the officers may reasonably believe to be kept for the manufacture of forged documents, counterfeit stamps, false seals, counterfeit coins, or counterfeit currency notes, and thereafter to produce the same forthwith before the issuing court at Chennai.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, the search and seizure warrant was limited to seizing articles or instruments relating to forgery or counterfeiting, and did not authorise the police to seal the -7- NC: 2025:KHC:46855 WP No. 21114 of 2025 HC-KAR entire residence or confiscate unrelated movable property such as the petitioner's vehicle. No copy of the warrant was furnished to the petitioner or his family before conducting the search, in contravention of procedural safeguards. The seizure of the vehicle and the sealing of the house is ultra vires the scope of the warrant, and hence, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Meghalaya, (2000) 7 SCC 640; Angel Click Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLineBom 682; Deepu v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 4289; Arunkumar v. State of Karnataka in Crl.P. No.200913/2024; and Kiran Joshi v. State of Rajasthan in Crl.Misc. No.4285/2024.
8. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the impleading complainant contends that since the FIR and search warrant emanate from proceedings before the learned Magistrate at Chennai, the appropriate forum for -8- NC: 2025:KHC:46855 WP No. 21114 of 2025 HC-KAR redressal is the Madras High Court. The respondent submits that the search and seizure were conducted in pursuance of a valid warrant and in the presence of independent witnesses.
9. Heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents. The following point would arise for consideration:
"Whether the act of sealing the petitioner's residential premises and seizure of his vehicle by the respondent police was within the scope of the search warrant dated 13.06.2025, and if not, whether such action warrants interference by this Court?"
10. Upon perusal of the search and seizure warrant, it is evident that the authorisation was restricted to seizure of instruments and materials used for the manufacture of -9- NC: 2025:KHC:46855 WP No. 21114 of 2025 HC-KAR forged or counterfeit documents, stamps, or seals. The relevant extract reads:
"...and to seize and take possession of any property and also of any instruments and material which you may reasonably believe to be kept for the manufacture of forged documents, or counterfeit stamps, or false seal or counterfeit coins or counterfeit currency notes...
(Emphasis supplied)"
11. Under the guise of executing the said search and seizure warrant, Respondents 2 and 3 have taken coercive steps wholly outside and beyond the express limits of authority conferred under the order of the learned Magistrate. Instead of confining themselves to the recovery of specific incriminating materials contemplated under the warrant, Respondents 2 and 3 have proceeded to seal the petitioner's residential premises, which is not one of the suspected locations mentioned in the warrant,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46855 WP No. 21114 of 2025 HC-KAR and have further seized a vehicle belonging to the petitioner. The said actions are, on the face of the record, patently without jurisdiction, as the warrant neither authorised nor empowered the respondents to seal any premises or to seize movable property such as a personal vehicle that has no nexus with the alleged manufacture of forged or counterfeit materials.
12. The conduct of the respondents clearly demonstrates that, under the garb of search and seizure, they have forcibly dispossessed the petitioner and his family members, including an infant child, from their residential house, thereby depriving them of shelter and basic security. The petitioner and his family have been denied access to their own residence, which stands sealed without any judicial order permitting such sealing. These acts are wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the constitutional mandate, violating the petitioner's rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(e), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The drastic action of sealing
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46855 WP No. 21114 of 2025 HC-KAR premises is not only beyond the scope of the warrant but also without the backing of any statutory provision enabling the police to dispossess a citizen of his residential dwelling in the absence of a specific direction by a competent court.
13. A closer examination of the search and seizure order issued by the Chennai Magistrate reveals that the complainant's apprehension pertained solely to the possibility of the petitioner and other accused manufacturing forged documents, counterfeit seals, or similar instruments allegedly used to cause unlawful loss to the complainant's business. Acting on such apprehension, the learned Magistrate issued a specific and limited warrant directing the police to search the identified premises and to retrieve only such materials which could reasonably be believed to be instruments of forgery or counterfeiting. The order was never intended to be a general warrant authorising the police to seize all
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46855 WP No. 21114 of 2025 HC-KAR belongings of the petitioner or to take coercive steps such as sealing of premises or dispossessing the petitioner.
14. It is not in dispute that when the police arrived, the petitioner's residential premises were found locked. The warrant empowered the police officers to break open the lock solely for the purpose of conducting the search and retrieving the documents, seals, or other materials specifically mentioned in the warrant. However, after breaking open the lock and conducting the search, the respondents have once again sealed the residential premises, thereby preventing the petitioner from accessing his own home though rented. Furthermore, the respondents have seized the petitioner's vehicle, which clearly does not fall within the description of items authorised for seizure under the warrant. Such action is ex facie illegal and grossly in excess of jurisdiction.
15. In light of the above legal position and the facts emerging from the record, this Court finds that the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46855 WP No. 21114 of 2025 HC-KAR respondents have clearly exceeded the authority vested in them. The purported sealing of the petitioner's residence and the seizure of his vehicle have been carried out in total disregard of the warrant and in violation of constitutional guarantees. These actions being wholly arbitrary, ultra vires, and unsupported by any lawful authority, the petitioner is justified in seeking a declaration that the sealing of the residential premises and seizure of the vehicle are illegal, unconstitutional and liable to be set aside.
16. A plain reading of the above portion of the search and seizure warrant indicates that the scope of search was limited to recovery of specific incriminating materials. There is no direction or authorisation to either seal the premises or seize the petitioner's personal vehicle.
17. Even under Sections 100 and 102 Cr.P.C., the police are bound by the limits of the authorisation and cannot assume jurisdiction to seize property unconnected
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46855 WP No. 21114 of 2025 HC-KAR with the alleged offence. The act of sealing an entire residential house, thereby preventing access to the petitioner and his family, is an act in excess of statutory authority and is not contemplated under the Code.
18. This Court is fortified by the ratio laid down in:
• Angel Click Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held that "a search warrant cannot be construed as a carte blanche for the police to seal business premises or seize property unconnected to the crime." • Deepu v. State of U.P. (supra), where the Court observed that seizure of unrelated movable property is ultra vires unless directly linked to the alleged offence.
19. Further, the contention that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction cannot be accepted. The seizure and sealing of the petitioner's property occurred within the territorial limits of this Court. Applying the principle laid down in Navinchandra N. Majithia (2000) 7 SCC 640,
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46855 WP No. 21114 of 2025 HC-KAR when a part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court is competent to entertain the writ petition.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent police, while executing the search warrant dated 13.06.2025, have exceeded the authority conferred under the said warrant by sealing the entire residential premises of the petitioner and seizing his personal vehicle. The impugned acts are, therefore, illegal, arbitrary, and beyond the scope of the warrant.
21. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The act of the respondent authorities in sealing the petitioner's residential premises situated at Villa 134, Avenue 09, Prestige Augusta Golf Village,
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46855
WP No. 21114 of 2025
HC-KAR
Opposite Sai Baba Temple, Kada
Agrahara Road, Rampura, Biderhalli,
Virgonagar PO, at Bengaluru and seizing the petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No.PY-05/VF-0606 pursuant to execution of search and seizure warrant dated 13.06.2025 issued by Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB, Chennai is hereby declared illegal, arbitrary and wholly beyond the mandate of the said search and seizure warrant.
iii. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to forthwith de-seal the petitioner's residential premises and return the seized vehicle to the petitioner, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of order copy.
iv. The respondent police are directed to file a compliance report before this Court within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NJ/List No.: 19 Sl No.: 5/CT:SI