Case Note & Summary
The matter arises from a writ petition filed by the respondent, Neeraj Kumar Sharma, seeking to quash an investigation report dated 15.06.2025 and for release of his vehicle, a Mercedes‑Benz AMG G63. The vehicle was originally purchased by one Nihal Ahmed in 2016 with financial assistance from HDFC Bank and was temporarily registered in Bengaluru. After the purchaser defaulted on the loan, the vehicle passed through several hands and was found to have been registered in Himachal Pradesh on the basis of fabricated documents; that registration was cancelled. The vehicle later surfaced in Delhi with another fabricated registration and was seized by the Delhi Police. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwaraka Courts, New Delhi, after considering the rival claims, released the vehicle to the financier, HDFC Bank, on certain conditions. Meanwhile, Nihal Ahmed settled the outstanding loan with the bank, which issued a no‑objection certificate. The respondent, acting on behalf of Nihal Ahmed, obtained temporary registration of the vehicle in Karnataka and eventually secured a permanent registration number. The State authorities alleged that the respondent, in collusion with certain officials, misdescribed the vehicle as a Mercedes‑Benz GLA 200 CDI instead of the original AMG G63, understated its value, and used fabricated documents including Form 21, Form 22, a tax invoice, and an insurance policy to obtain the registration. Consequently, the transport authorities cancelled the registration. The respondent challenged the investigation report and the cancellation in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition, quashed the investigation report, set aside the cancellation, and directed restoration of the registration and release of the vehicle. Aggrieved, the State and the transport authorities filed the present intra‑court appeal. The appeal was heard and reserved for judgment on 23.06.2026, and judgment was pronounced on 28.07.2026. The available excerpt of the judgment contains only the introduction and the statement of facts up to paragraph 26, and does not include the court’s analysis on the issues, the submissions of parties, or the final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (07) 68
Writ Appeal No. 1203 of 2026 (MV)
Vibhu Bakhru, CJ and K.S. Hemalekha, J
K.S. Harish, Principal Government Advocate for appellants; H. Pavan Chandra Shetty for respondent
State of Karnataka, Joint Commissioner of Transport, Regional Transport Officer Mysore West, Senior Inspector of Motor Vehicles Mysore West
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against a single judge order quashing an investigation report and restoring the registration of a luxury vehicle, involving allegations of fraudulent registration and tax evasion.
Remedy Sought
The appellants (state transport authorities) seek to set aside the single judge's order dated 24.03.2026, which quashed the investigation report and directed restoration of registration and release of the vehicle to the respondent.
Filing Reason
The respondent filed the underlying writ petition challenging the investigation report and the cancellation of his vehicle's registration. The single judge allowed the petition, leading the state to prefer this appeal.
Previous Decisions
Single Judge order in WP No.36250/2025 (MV) dated 24.03.2026 allowed the petition; earlier, the transport authorities cancelled the registration on 16.01.2026; Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwaraka Courts, New Delhi, passed orders on superdari and release of the vehicle to HDFC Bank; Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru, issued a recovery certificate against Nihal Ahmed.
Judgment Excerpts
The vehicle in question reached Himachal Pradesh and was registered with the RTO, Indora, Himachal Pradesh, as "HP-97-6063". The said registration was secured on the basis of fabricated documents and by prefixing and suffixing an additional character " ✱ " to the chassis number on account of which the subsisting temporary registration of the vehicle did not surface on the VAHAAN portal.
The State's case is that, in securing registration, the respondent failed to disclose the vehicle's true description or its antecedent history. The respondent, in collusion with certain officials of the Regional Transport Office, Mangaluru, described the vehicle as a "Mercedes-Benz GLA 200 CDI" instead of “Mercedes-AMG G63”.
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition; quashed the investigation report impugned in the petition; and directed that the vehicle – Mercedes-Benz AMG G63, bearing Chassis No. WDB4632722X261301 and Engine No. 15798460107755 – be released forthwith to the respondent.
Procedural History
The respondent Neeraj Kumar Sharma filed Writ Petition No.36250/2025 (MV) seeking quashing of the investigation report dated 15.06.2025 and release of vehicle No. KA20MH0888. During the pendency, the transport authorities cancelled the registration on 16.01.2026. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition on 24.03.2026, quashing the investigation report, setting aside the cancellation, and directing restoration of the registration and release of the vehicle. The State, aggrieved, filed the present writ appeal.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka High Court Act, 1961: Section 4
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 406, 420, 504, 34
