(Prayer: This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, praying to quashing the fir bearing crime no.zero-0001/2026 of Kodigehalli police station instituted against the petitioner as accused no.1.)
Cav Order:
1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a crime in Crime No.117 of 2026 registered for offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 336(3) read with 3(5) of the BNS.
2. Heard Sri Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.A. Belliappa, learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri M.S. Bhagwath, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
3.1. The petitioner purchases a black colour Lamborghini Huracan car bearing Chassis No. ZHWEF4ZF3MLA16940 and Engine No.DGF008769 from Hoysala Automotive Private Limited on 01-09-2025 paying an amount of ₹3,00,68,729/-. Subsequent to the purchase, it is claimed that the procedure stipulated in law was followed and the car is registered with registration number being KA03NX0016. The car was manufactured in the year 2021 and the distributor is said to have informed the petitioner that the car was sold to one M/s Harrsha Infra Cons Private Limited in the year 2022 with temporary registration certificate and with permission to obtain permanent registration in the State of Telangana. It is the averment in the petition, that the purchaser after obtaining temporary certificate of registration did not register the vehicle or did not get a permanent registration to the vehicle. Therefore, it was returned to the original Hoysala Automotives Private Limited who used the car as a demo vehicle and subsequently put it for sale. The vehicle that was manufactured in 2021 and used as a demo vehicle was put up for sale with reduced price. The petitioner then purchases the vehicle on 01-09-2025 and a bill to that effect of delivery of the vehicle dated 29-08-2025 is appended to the petition. The vehicle was registered as a new vehicle and it was a fact that the vehicle did not get its registration earlier though it was manufactured in the year 2021.
3.2. The petitioner on 07-02-2026 was out of station. The 2nd respondent, along with other officers, is said to have forcibly entered the premises of the petitioner, seized the vehicle without any prior notice or investigation. The vehicle is taken by the 2nd respondent by himself and is said to have handed over to Yelahanka New Town Police Station. The petitioner then comes to know that a crime has been registered in zero FIR for offences punishable as afore-quoted. Thereafter, the vehicle is transferred to the jurisdictional police and a crime is registered as Crime No.117 of 2026. The petitioner challenges the said registration of the crime and simultaneously prefers an application under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS seeking release of the vehicle before the learned Magistrate. Objections are filed by the Government before the learned Magistrate to the said application. Owing to the objections, the concerned Court rejects the prayer in terms of its order dated 18-02-2026. By then the petitioner has preferred the subject petition.
3.3. This Court owing to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State Public Prosecutor had passed the following order on 12-02-2026:
“Heard the learned counsel Sri Venkatesh S Arbatti appearing for petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor Sri B A Belliappa, appearing for respondents.
2. The petitioner is the owner of a motor vehicle- Lamborghini Huracane car. He purchases the said car from the authorized dealer, one Hoysala Automotives on 01-09-2025 by paying certain amount. The amount so paid included ₹1 core GST to the coffers of the State and ₹60 lakhs road tax. The vehicle is sent for registration by the dealer. The Regional Transport Office of Indiranagar, Bangalore East, registers the said vehicle and renders it a number K03NX0016. The Registration Card is appended to the petition, which depicts that the registration date is 19-09-2025, but the manufacturing was during the year 2021. The petitioner uses the said vehicle and keeps it in his garage.
3. The 2nd respondent, Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector on 07-02-2026 registers a zero FIR No.1/26 at 11.10 p.m. alleging the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), Section 336(3) r/w Section 3(5) of the BNS, which would be offence under Section 420 and 468 of the earlier regime, the IPC, the offence of cheating and forgery. The complaint reads as follows:
The complaint is with regard to fraud, forgery and fabrication of documents in registering the vehicle.
4. The learned State Public Prosecutor strenuously contends that the owners of the vehicle have forged and caused loss to the State, apart from forging the invoices. Therefore, the crime is registered for forgery and cheating. Forgery would be with regard to a fraud played in the registration and cheating would be with regard to a loss caused to the State exchequer.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner takes this Court through the invoice of the authorized dealer. The vehicle is purchased at ₹3,00,68,729/- and as observed hereinabove, ₹ 1 crore goes to GST and ₹ 60 lakhs to the State as road tax.
6. The Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector, the complainant, after registration of the crime, in the absence of the petitioner or in the absence of any notice to the petitioner, enters the house, goes to the garage, tows the vehicle himself and takes it away. The petitioner then approaches every police station to get to know where the vehicle was. He is made to run from pillar to post saying the vehicle is not in this jurisdiction or the other jurisdiction. The petitioner then approaches the concerned Court by filing an application under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS seeking release of the vehicle. It transpires that, the State appears before the concerned Court and submits that it is not before the Kodigehalli police station nor do they reveal where the vehicle is. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court calling in question the said crime.
7. The Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector who had displayed an unnecessary hurry in the matter to seize the vehicle in a case, where it was a loss to the exchequer of the State, covering up it with fraud, is present before the Court. It is on his instructions, the learned State Public Prosecutor submits that once the crime is registered, it is the power of the Senior Motor Vehicles Inspector, to seize the vehicle from wherever it is, in whatever form it is. The said submission is sans countenance, albeit, for the present, unless the learned State Public Prosecutor would place on record the power to do so.
8. The learned State Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the vehicle is now stationed at the Yalahanka New Town police station. As observed hereinabove, the officer in the RTO, Indiranagar, Bangalore East registers the vehicle, collects tax, and causes loss to State Exchequer. If there is fraud played by the office of the RTO of Bangalore East, which the learned State Public Prosecutor now candidly, submits that the earlier details of the vehicle were effaced, in the RTO office and new details are keyed in, it is surprising that the officers of the RTO are not made accused in the case at hand. Only the owner of the car is made accused. The learned State Public Prosecutor would submit that every person involved in this transaction will be brought to books by registering crimes against them. The submission is placed on record.
9. Insofar as the contention that the 2nd respondent, the Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector, the complainant had power to himself go, seize and tow the vehicle and place it at various police stations, is concerned, this Court could await a reply from the hands of the learned State Public Prosecutor.
10. The petitioner is at liberty to file an application before the learned Magistrate under Section 497 and 503 of the BNSS forthwith. The learned Magistrate shall, without brooking any delay, dispose the said application in accordance with law.
List the matter on 18-02-2026 at 02.30 p.m.
In the light of the aforesaid circumstance, further investigation qua the petitioner shall stand stayed till the next date of hearing.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The matter is further heard at that stage.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the offences so alleged against the petitioner are the ones for cheating and forgery for the purpose of cheating, both of which would not get attracted in the case at hand and if it is the submission of the learned State Public Prosecutor that there is tax evasion, there was no illegality in seizing the vehicle, it is again contrary to law, as the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) requires prior notice to be given to the owner of the vehicle in the event he has evaded tax. It is only at a later point in time the seizure can happen of the vehicle. Therefore, the seizure of the vehicle, on the face of it is illegal, as also registration of the crime. He would seek quashment of proceedings and re-delivery of the vehicle to the hands of the owner of the vehicle/petitioner.
5. Per contra, the learned State Public Prosecutor would submit that the vehicle’s registration has taken place on fabricated documents. He would take this Court through the documents appended to the objections, to contend that the 2nd respondent is a special squad to track down vehicles being used without paying adequate tax. The learned State Public Prosecutor would submit that the vehicle that was manufactured in the year 2021 has not been registered for a period of 4 years and without registration or temporary registration the vehicle is now sold to another person in the year 2025. The records of the car in the office of the Regional Transport Officer have been effaced or obliterated or new records are created, as if the vehicle was newly manufactured and registered for the first time. He would, therefore, submit that it is a matter for investigation, that the search and seizure is not illegal and that the officer was empowered to seize the vehicle. The matter may be permitted to be investigated into.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts, dates and link in the chain of events are all a matter of record. At the first instance, it is necessary to notice the invoice with which the petitioner purchased the vehicle. The invoice is dated 01-09-2025. It reads as follows:
The vehicle is sent for registration. The registration fee is paid which is as follows:
The vehicle gets registered and the Registration Certificate copy of the vehicle is as follows:
The manufacturing date is shown as February 2021. The registration date is shown as 19-09-2025. No other vehicle details are admittedly available on the website of the Regional Transport Office concerning this vehicle.
8. The issue now would be, whether on the aforesaid ground of the crime being registered, the 2nd respondent could have seized the vehicle belonging to the petitioner?
9. The State has produced several documents in its support.
It is necessary to notice a few of them. The distributor/dealer on a clarification sought by the Regional Transport Officer replies as follows:
The dealer would contend that the invoice dated 01-09-2025 issued in favour of the petitioner is forged and fabricated and that it is not issued by it. Another communication is also necessary to be noticed which reads as follows:
The temporary registration of the vehicle done on behalf of the distributor is as follows:
On the aforesaid facts, owing to the suspicion that the petitioner has evaded tax, Kodigehalli police registered a zero FIR on 07-02-2026 based upon a complaint made by the 2nd respondent. The complaint reads as follows:
(Emphasis added)
The moment the crime comes to be registered, the 2nd respondent barges into the house of the petitioner, serves a demand notice of tax evasion of ₹60,08,734/- and takes away the vehicle. This is, on the face of it, contrary to law.
10. If it was the case of the Taxation Authority that there was evasion of tax, the procedure stipulated in law must have been followed, as obtaining under the Act, reference to which is necessary. Section 2 deals with definition. Section 2(f) and 2(h) read as follows:
2. Definitions.- (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
… … …
(f) “registered owner” means the person in whose name a motor vehicle is registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act IV of 1939);
… … …
(h) “taxation card” means a taxation card issued under section 5 and includes a fresh taxation card issued in place of the original taxation card under sub-section (2) of section 6.”
Sub-sections (f) and (h) of Section 2 deal with ‘registered owner’ and ‘taxation card’. The registered owner is the one who has a vehicle in his name. Taxation card is issued under Section 5 of the Act. Section 5 reads as follows:
“5. Issue of taxation card.- (1) When the tax levied under section 3 in respect of a motor vehicle is paid, the taxation authority shall issue to the person paying the tax,—
(a) a receipt in the prescribed form indicating therein the amount of tax paid; and
(b) a taxation card in the prescribed form indicating therein the rate at which the tax is leviable and the period for which the tax has been paid:
Provided that where a taxation card has already been issued in respect of a motor vehicle, the taxation authority shall, on payment of tax as aforesaid, cause to be made in the taxation card an entry of such payment and the period to which it relates.
(2) No motor vehicle liable to tax under section 3, shall be held in the custody of any person unless the registered owner or person having possession or control of such vehicle has obtained a taxation card under sub-section (1) in respect of that vehicle.
(3) No motor vehicle liable to tax under section 3 shall be used on any road or in a public place unless a valid taxation card obtained under subsection (1) is carried in the vehicle.”
No motor vehicle liable to tax under Section 3 shall be used on any road or in a public place, unless the registered owner or person having possession of the vehicle has obtained a valid taxation card.
The petitioner did have taxation card and the vehicle was registered in his name. Section 8A of the Act reads as follows:
“8A. Collection of tax escaping payment.- If at any time it is found that the amount of tax paid for any period in respect of any motor vehicle falls short of the tax payable under this Act, then, notwithstanding any incorrect entry or the absence of any entry in the certificate of registration relating to the motor vehicle regarding the tax payable in respect of such vehicle or the issue of a taxation card or an entry having been made in such taxation card regarding the payment of tax for such period, the taxation authority may, after notice to the registered owner or person having possession or control of the motor vehicle and giving him an opportunity of being heard recover the difference between the tax so paid and the tax payable by such owner or person.”
If, at any point in time, it is discovered that the tax remitted for a given period, falls short of what is lawfully payable under the Taxation Act, the Competent Authority is empowered, but only after issuing due notice to the registered owner or the person in possession or control of the vehicle and affording such person, a reasonable opportunity of being heard, to recover the differential amount of tax from such owner.
11. Power to seize, detain and sell is dealt with under Section 11A of the Taxation Act. It reads as follows:
“11-A. Power to seize, detain and sell vehicles.— (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of Sections 13 and 14, where any tax due in respect of any motor vehicle has not been paid within the period specified in Section 4, such officer,—
(i) of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of an Inspector of Motor Vehicles; or
(ii) of the Police Department not below the rank of an Inspector of Police, as the State Government may empower in this behalf, may, subject to such rules as may be prescribed, seize and detain such vehicle and for this purpose, take or cause to be taken all steps for the safe custody of the vehicle, until the tax due in respect of the vehicle is paid.
(2) If the tax due in respect of the vehicle seized and detained under sub-section (1), is not paid within thirty days from the date of such seizure and detention, the officer empowered by the State Government may, after giving a notice in writing to the registered owner and the person who had the possession or control of the vehicle immediately before such seizure and detention, and considering their objections, if any, recover the tax due by sale of such vehicle in the manner prescribed:
Provided that the vehicle shall not be sold if the tax due is paid at any time before sale.”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
Section 11A in turn, confers the power to seize, detain, and even sell a vehicle where tax remains due and unpaid in respect of a vehicle falling within the ambit of Section 4, provided the procedure for determination of tax evasion has been scrupulously complied with. Thus, seizure is not an unbridled power; it is a conditional one, hedged in, by procedural safeguards and to be exercised only upon due determination.
12. In the case at hand, the chronology of events reveals a startling inversion of statutory scheme. The crime is registered on 07-02-2026, and in the hottest haste the very next day, the 2nd respondent enters petitioner’s residence and takes away the vehicle. It is only thereafter that a demand notice is sought to be issued. The sequence of actions by the 2nd respondent has left the procedure stipulated in law topsy-turvy. What emerges is a situation where no lawful demand has been determined, no notice is served upon the petitioner calling upon him to make good the alleged deficit in tax and yet the most drastic measure, seizure of the vehicle, is resorted to, at the very threshold. A remedy that the statute contemplates, as a last resort, has, in the case at hand, deployed as the first.
13. Compounding to this irregularity, is the manner in which the proceedings have unfolded. The crime is registered, initially as a zero FIR and subsequently, transmitted to the jurisdictional police. The 2nd respondent who is the complainant, proceeds to personally effect seizure of the vehicle from within the petitioner’s premises. It is disquieting that a complainant would in such fashion, traverse the boundary between accusation and execution, thereby assuming powers that the law does not contemplate nor the law conferred upon him. Such conduct betrays a manifest and egregious abuse of authority, the departure from established procedure is not merely technical; it is fundamental, striking at the very root of due process. The safeguards enshrined in law, have not merely been overlooked, they have been rendered illusory, all acts attributable to the 2nd respondent.
14. The learned State Public Prosecutor with candour, admits and acknowledges that the matter may involve a deeper and more intricate conspiracy, possibly implicating officials within the office of the Regional Transport Office. The learned State Public Prosecutor has undertaken that those responsible for effacing or manipulation of records pertaining to the subject vehicle, records that now depict the vehicle as having been registered for the first time in 2025, shall be identified and proceeded against, in accordance with law. The undertaking of the learned State Public Prosecutor is placed on record, with a direction to execute and report back to this Court.
15. Be those submissions as they are. The broader considerations that have emerged in the case at hand, cannot salvage the patent illegality connected to the seizure of the vehicle. On the face of it, seizure is unsustainable and the only inescapable conclusion is that the vehicle must be restored to its lawful owner. The submission that the petitioner ought to have sought recourse under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS does not merit any acceptance. Those provisions are attracted, where a stolen property is attached and produced before the Magistrate. The present case stands on an entirely different footing. The vehicle is neither stolen nor unlawfully possessed; it is a duly registered vehicle, taken from the custody of its registered owner, without adherence to any prescribed procedure. There is, therefore, now arrant to relegate the petitioner to the remedy under Sections 497 or 503 of the BNSS.
16. At the same time, the gravity of the misconduct on the part of the 2nd respondent cannot be ignored. A direction must necessarily issue for initiation of a departmental enquiry against the said respondent for having acted in flagrant disregard of law and for overstepping the bounds of his Authority. Equally, the undertaking furnished by the learned State Public Prosecutor that those responsible for deletion of the records in the Regional Transport Officer, shall be brought to books – must be give full effect.
17. The question that remains is, whether investigation against the petitioner ought to be quashed in its entirety. In the light of the foregoing analysis and considering the cloud of uncertainty that still shrouds certain aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the FIR cannot be sustained. However, while the crime is liable to be obliterated, it would not be prudent to foreclose the State’s Authority to act in accordance with law. If, upon proper enquiry and strict adherence to statutory procedure, it is found that the petitioner has indeed evaded tax, the law must take its course. It must, therefore be held that although the 2nd respondent, has in effect, committed a legal hara-kiri by disregarding the governing provisions, the quashing of the crime will not operate as a licence to the petitioner to escape liability, if any, under law. Liberty is thus reserved to the State, to proceed afresh, strictly in accordance with law and with due observance to the procedural safeguards.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
O R D E R
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) FIR in Crime No.117 of 2026 registered before Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station stands quashed, reserving liberty to the State to act in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.
(iii) The vehicle that is seized and now in the custody of Police shall be released to the custody of the owner/ petitioner within one week from today.
(iv) Departmental enquiry must ensue against the 2nd respondent for having acted in flagrant disregard of law, in the light of the observation made in the course of the order.
(v) The undertaking of the learned State Public Prosecutor that officers of the Regional Transport Office would be brought to books by initiating proceedings for having deleted the data of the vehicle from its devices shall be executed and a report to that effect be placed before the Court within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, so as the result of enquiry against the 2nd respondent.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2026 also stands disposed.
 |
This Product is Licensed to , |