Case Note & Summary
The petitioners filed a criminal writ petition challenging the seizure of their immovable property by the investigating officer under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Bombay High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's authoritative judgment in Nevada Properties Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra, held that immovable property cannot be seized under Section 102 CrPC. The court observed that the issue has been conclusively settled by the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, which categorically stated that allowing police officers to seize immovable property would lead to chaos in society. Consequently, the court quashed the seizure and directed the respondents to release the property. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice M.W. Chandwani on 13 December 2022.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Seizure of Property - Section 102 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Police cannot seize immovable property under Section 102 CrPC - The Supreme Court in Nevada Properties Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra held that seizure of immovable property by police under Section 102 CrPC is not permissible and would lead to chaos in society (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether or not immovable property can be seized by the Investigating Officer in exercise of power under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Final Decision
The court quashed the seizure of immovable property and directed the respondents to release the property. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Seizure of immovable property under Section 102 CrPC is not permissible
- Immovable property cannot be seized by police officer
- Section 102 CrPC applies only to movable property
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (12) 155
Criminal Writ Petition No. 636/2020
Sunil B. Shukre, M.W. Chandwani
Mr. S.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Adarsh Dubey for the petitioner; Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for respondent nos.1 and 2
Vikram S/o Madhukar Labhe and others
The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. Ambazari, Nagpur and another
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging seizure of immovable property by investigating officer under Section 102 CrPC
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of seizure of their immovable property and direction to release the property
Filing Reason
Investigating officer seized immovable property of petitioners under Section 102 CrPC, which is not permissible as per Supreme Court judgment
Issues
Whether immovable property can be seized by Investigating Officer under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that seizure of immovable property under Section 102 CrPC is not permissible as held by Supreme Court in Nevada Properties Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra
Respondents did not contest the legal position but relied on affidavit-in-reply
Ratio Decidendi
Seizure of immovable property by a police officer under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not permissible. The power under Section 102 CrPC applies only to movable property, and allowing seizure of immovable property would lead to chaos in society.
Judgment Excerpts
The Supreme Court in Nevada Properties (P) Ltd. (supra) has categorically held that seizure of immovable property by Police Officer under Section 102 of the Code is not permissible and if it is to be countenanced by any Court of law, chaos in society will follow.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 636/2020 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the seizure of their immovable property under Section 102 CrPC. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 13 December 2022.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 102
