Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sangeeta Sanjay Malavankar and Sandeep Bhimrao Sarvagod, were accused in Crime No. I-217 of 2019 registered at Rabale Police Station, Navi Mumbai, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on a complaint by Jayshree Kisan Ghosalkar. During investigation, the Investigating Officer moved an application on 12 July 2019 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) seeking approval to attach or seize the immovable property of the petitioners, suspected to have been purchased from the proceeds of crime. The JMFC granted approval, and the police seized the property. The petitioners challenged this seizure by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 212 of 2019 before the Additional Sessions Judge, who upheld the police action. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Bombay High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The core legal issue was whether the police had the power to seize or attach immovable property under Section 102 CrPC. The petitioners argued that Section 102 CrPC only permits seizure of movable property or documents, not immovable property. The State contended that the seizure was valid. The High Court analyzed Section 102 CrPC and held that the provision does not authorize seizure of immovable property; it only applies to movable property or documents. The court noted that the JMFC's order granting approval was without jurisdiction, and the revision against such an interlocutory order was not maintainable under Section 397 CrPC. However, the High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and Article 227 to quash the illegal order. The court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and the JMFC's order, directing the police to return the property to the petitioners. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Seizure of Property - Section 102 CrPC - Police Power - The police have no power to seize or attach immovable property under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The provision only authorizes seizure of movable property or documents. The seizure of the petitioners' immovable property was without authority of law and illegal. (Paras 5-7) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Maintainability - Section 397 CrPC - The order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class granting approval to attach property under Section 102 CrPC is an interlocutory order and revision under Section 397 CrPC is not maintainable. However, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC or Article 227 of the Constitution to correct such illegal orders. (Paras 5-7) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Inherent Powers - Section 482 CrPC - Quashing of Illegal Order - The High Court can interfere under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process of court and to secure the ends of justice when a subordinate court passes an order without jurisdiction. The order of the JMFC approving seizure of immovable property was without jurisdiction and is quashed. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the police have the power to seize or attach immovable property under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the order of the Additional Sessions Judge upholding such seizure is sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition. The order dated 12th March, 2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.212 of 2019 and the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class granting approval to attach/seize the immovable property were quashed and set aside. The police were directed to return the property to the petitioners.
Law Points
- Police cannot seize immovable property under Section 102 CrPC
- Section 102 CrPC applies only to movable property
- Attachment of property under Section 102 CrPC is illegal
- Revision against order of JMFC is maintainable
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Section 482 CrPC
