Muthoot Finance Limited, vs State Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 30 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010522862026
+ CRL.REV.P. 644/2026 & CRL.M.A. 34087/2026
MUTHOOT FINANCE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gunjan Kumar, Mr. Ankit, K and
Mr. Kamal Bisth, Advocates with
Mr. Vishwas Sethi, A.R.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State
W/SI Nikhini Adane, P.S. Chandni
Mahal
Mr. Kunal Narang, Mr. Vishal Bhati
and Mr. M. Daniyal Beg, Advocates
for Complainant
Mr. Ahmad Ali, Advocate for
prosecutrix
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The present revision petition has been filed seeking the following
reliefs:-
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 644/2026 Page 1 of 7
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:50:17
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 644/2026 Page 2 of 7
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:50:17
th
2. The present case arises out of FIR no.17/2025 dated 9 January, 2025
for offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)
registered at P.S. Chadni Mahal on the complaint of respondent no.3.
3. The respondent no.3 alleged that respondent no.2/accused on the
pretext of marriage maintained physical relations with her and respondent
no.2 took her gold jewellery without her consent and pledged the same with
branches of the petitioner at Asaf Ali Road and Ansari Road/Daryaganj
Delhi.
4. On the basis of the pledge, respondents no.2, 4 and 5 availed loan
facilities from the petitioner. The petitioner was served notice under Section
94 BNSS by the Investigating Officer to which reply was filed. The
chargesheet has already been filed and the matter is at the stage of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 644/2026 Page 3 of 7
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:50:17
prosecution evidence.
5. During the pendency of the trial, pledged gold articles weighing 634.5
grams were seized by the police from the petitioner’s branches at Asaf Ali
Road and Ansari Road/Daryaganj. The seizure memos described the articles
as “gold like metal jewellery”.
th
6. On 5 December, 2025, test identification of the seized case property
was conducted before the JMFC. Respondent no.3 identified certain articles,
sealed as “Mark A”, however, respondent no. 3 did not identify the
remaining articles, sealed as “Mark B”.
7. The petitioner filed an application before the Trial Court under
Sections 497/503 BNSS seeking interim custody/superdari of the seized
articles. Respondent no. 3 also sought release of the said articles on
superdari .
st
8. The Sessions Court vide order dated 21 July, 2026, disposed of the
applications filed by the parties. The directions relevant to the present
petition contained in paragraph 13(e) of the impugned order are set out
below:-
“(e) Upon completion of the above, the articles in Mark B shall be released
on superdari to the duly authorised officer of Muthoot Finance Ltd., subject to
the following, to the satisfaction of this Court:
(i) an indemnity bond for and on behalf of the company, equal to the value
of Mark B assessed by the valuer, executed by an officer of the company
not below the rank of Regional/Zonal Manager, duly authorised by board
resolution, with the valuation certificate annexed;
(ii) an FDR of a nationalised bank, or a bank guarantee, in the sum of
25% of the assessed value of Mark B, pledged in favour of this Court, to
abide by final orders under Section 498 BNSS;
(iii) an affidavit-cum-undertaking of the said officer that the company
shall: keep the articles in the same sealed and inventoried condition in the
vault of a branch situated within Delhi, identified in the undertaking, and
shall not shift the articles therefrom without prior leave of this Court;
shall not sell, auction, melt, alienate, re-pledge, encumber or otherwise
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 644/2026 Page 4 of 7
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:50:17
deal with the articles during the pendency of the trial, notwithstanding any
default in the underlying loan accounts, the right of sale under Section
176 of the Contract Act remaining suspended qua these articles until final
orders under Section 498 BNSS; shall produce the articles before this
Court as and when directed; and shall intimate this Court in advance of
any change of authorised officer or place of storage. The articles shall be
handed over against a release memo and shall continue to remain
custodia legis.
(iv) In the event the applicant company fails to comply with the conditions
in (c) and (e)(i) to (iii) within four weeks of the completion of valuation,
the articles in Mark B shall not be released and the Mark B box shall,
upon resealing with the seal of this Court, be deposited for safe custody in
the same manner and on the same terms as directed for Mark A in clause
(f).
9. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to condition no.(ii) of
13(e) in terms of which, the petitioner has been directed to furnish an FDR
of a nationalised bank or bank guarantee in the sum of 25% of the assessed
value of Mark B.
10. Mr. Gunjan Kumar appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that
this an onerous condition as the gold jewellery at Mark B has not been
identified by the complainant and therefore, the complainant cannot have
any claim to the same. Mr. Gunjan Kumar further submits that petitioner is
agreeable to remaining conditions which are contained in paragraph 13(e).
11. Having heard the counsel for the parties, this Court is in agreement
with the contention of the petitioner that condition no.(ii) imposes
unnecessary and unwarranted burden on petitioner, considering the fact that
the said jewellery has not been identified by the respondent
no.3/complainant as her own.
12. Accordingly, the said condition imposed by the Trial Court in
paragraph 13(e)(ii) is set aside.
13. Insofar as the jewellery articles forming part of mark A, the Trial
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 644/2026 Page 5 of 7
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:50:17
Cout has passed the following directions:-
“(f) The articles in Mark A shall not, at this stage, be released to either
applicant. Upon completion of the exercise in (b) to (d) and resealing with
the seal of this Court, the Mark A box shall be deposited for safe custody
with the Treasury, in terms of Part E, Chapter 11, Volume III of the Delhi
High Court Rules, (Manjit Singh v. State, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4384),
through the District Nazir, the requisite orders of the competent authority
contemplated by the said Rules being obtained by the branch, under
intimation to this Court and to the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge
(Central). In the event the Treasury facility is unavailable or unsuitable , the
box shall instead be deposited in a locker of a nationalised bank, hired
through the District Nazir with the approval of the Ld. Principal District
& Sessions Judge (Central), operable only under the orders of this Court.”
14. Mr. Gunjan Kumar submits that storing this jewellery in the treasury
of the Court or depositing the same with nationalised bank would impose
unnecessary financial burden on the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner
should be permitted to store the same at its own facility.
15. Counsel for respondent no.3 submits that the said jewellery belongs to
respondent no.3 and was fraudulently obtained by the accused person from
her and wrongfully pledged with the petitioner. The counsel for respondent
no.3 further submits that the jewellery articles have been identified by
respondent no.3 as her own.
16. In these circumstances, no grounds are made out for variation in the
direction contained in paragraph 13(f) above. Based on the outcome of the
trial, the petitioner would have the right to recover the charges incurred by it
towards storage of jewellery articles in Mark A from the parties concerned.
17. Mr. Gunjan Kumar also seeks variation in the direction contained in
paragraph 13(h) of the order to the extent that instead of Regional Manager
filing an affidavit, the concerned Branch Manager may be directed to file the
requisite affidavit in terms of the directions. The paragraph 13(h) is set out
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 644/2026 Page 6 of 7
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:50:17
below:-
“(h) Within two weeks, the applicant company shall file an affidavit of an
officer not below the rank of Regional Manager disclosing, account-wise,
the status of every loan account of the three pledgers named in the replies
dated 28.01.2025, 25.02.2025 and 16.03.2025, and in respect of any
account closed or rendered inactive after 09.01.2025: the date and mode of
closure; the ornaments released, auctioned or otherwise dealt with; the
person to whom released; and the verification undertaken at the time of
release; together with the ownership-verification record, KYC documents
and complete loan file of each account connected with the seized articles.
The company shall preserve all records, including CCTV footage if
available, relating to the said accounts until the conclusion of trial.”
18. Counsel for the respondents do not object the same.
19. Accordingly, the direction contained in paragraph 13(h) is modified to
the extent that the requisite affidavit be filed by branch manager.
20. The petition is disposed of.
AMIT BANSAL, J
OCTOBER 30, 2026
ds
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 644/2026 Page 7 of 7
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:50:17